4.5 Article

Dietary effects on life history traits in a terrestrial isopod: the importance of evaluating maternal effects and trade-offs

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 138, 期 3, 页码 387-395

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-003-1447-5

关键词

life history; maternal effects; food quality; herbivores; terrestrial isopod

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of life history aim to explain patterns in the evolution of reproductive investment, growth, and survival. Trade-offs between traits are a fundamental component of life history theory. In herbivorous arthropods life history traits are often responsive to variation in numerous environmental factors, especially diet quality. Using three artificial diets under controlled laboratory conditions, we examined changes in life history traits (i.e. growth rate, offspring number, offspring size, incubation period), trade-offs between traits, and maternal effect on the growth rate of offspring, in the common woodlouse (terrestrial isopod), Porcellio laevis. The high protein diet had significant impacts on offspring production, triggering a smaller-sized offspring, and demonstrating a trade-off between these last two traits. The high carbohydrate diet seldom exerted a significant effect on incubation period. The quality of dietary items evidently has important consequences on the life history of the mother and, thus, on offspring growth; the directions of these effects, however, were opposite. Mothers fed diets with high protein concentrations presented significant maternal effects, measured as offspring growth rate during later ontogeny. Our results support the notion that protein, rather than carbohydrate, concentrations in the diet limit herbivorous arthropods, and have significant consequences on life history traits, as was seen for P. laevis. Clearly, the change in phenotypic correlations between incubation period and offspring number from negative to positive is an empirical demonstration of the context dependence of life history trait trade-offs.

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

4.5
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