4.3 Article

The impact of reproduction on Gambian women: Does controlling for phenotypic quality reveal costs of reproduction?

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
卷 132, 期 4, 页码 632-641

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20558

关键词

life history; mortality; sub-Saharan Africa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Life history theory predicts that where resources are limited, investment in reproduction will cause a decline in body condition and ultimately may lower survival rates. We investigate the relationship between reproduction and mortality in women in rural Gambia. We use a number of different measures of reproductive investment: the timing of reproduction, intensity of reproduction, and cumulative reproductive investment (parity). Though giving birth is clearly a risk factor for increased mortality, we find limited evidence that the timing, intensity, or cumulative effects of reproduction have a survival cost. Instead, there is some evidence that women who have invested heavily in reproduction have higher survival than women with lower reproductive investment: both high parity and late age at last reproduction are associated with high survival. The only evidence for any cost of reproduction is that women who have given birth to twins (considered a marker of heavy investment in reproduction) have higher mortality rates than other women, after the age of 50 years. A potential confounding factor may be differences in health between women: particularly healthy women may be able to invest substantially in both reproduction and their own survival, leading to the positive correlations between survival and both parity and age at last birth we observe. To control for differences in health between women, we reanalyze the relationship between reproduction and mortality but include variables correlating with health in our models (height, BMI, and hemoglobin). Even when controlling for health, the positive correlation between investment in reproduction and survival remains unchanged.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据