4.4 Article

An Overlooked Consequence of Dietary Mixing: A Varied Diet Reduces Interindividual Variance in Fitness

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 186, 期 5, 页码 649-659

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/683182

关键词

dietary generalism/specialism; life history; lnCVR; meta-analysis; nutritional ecology; nutritional geometry

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship
  2. Rutherford Discovery Fellowship (New Zealand)
  3. Future Fellowship (Australia)
  4. IDEX-University of Toulouse
  5. Fyssen Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The determinants of diet breadth are of interest to nutritionists, ecologists, and evolutionary biologists. A recent synthesis addressing this issue found conflicting evidence for the relationship between diet breadth and mean individual fitness. Specifically, it found that while, on average, a mixed diet does increase mean fitness, in some instances, a single food provides equal (or higher) fitness than a mixed diet. Critical to ecological and evolutionary considerations of diet, however, is not only mean fitness but also variance in fitness. We combine contemporary meta-analytic methods with models of nutritional geometry to evaluate how diet affects between-individual variance in fitness within generalist consumers from a range of trophic levels. As predicted by nutritional geometry, we found that between-individual variance in fitness-related traits is higher on single-food than mixed diets. The effect was strong for longevity traits (57% higher) and reproductive traits (37%) and present but weaker for size-related traits (10%). Further, the effect became stronger as the number of available foods increased. The availability of multiple foods likely allows individuals with differing nutritional optima to customize intake, each maximizing their own fitness. Importantly, these findings may suggest that selection on traits correlated with nutritional requirements is weak in heterogeneous nutritional environments.

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

4.4
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