Literature DB >> 20528469

Parental care trade-offs and life-history relationships in insects.

James D J Gilbert1, Andrea Manica.   

Abstract

Insect parental care is extensive and varied, but its life-history implications have never been comparatively tested. Using original and literature data, we tested predictions about egg size, egg number (lifetime fecundity), and body size under different parental care modes across a phylogeny of 287 insect species. Life-history theory and both comparative and intraspecific evidence from ectotherms suggest parental care should select for bigger, fewer eggs, but that allometric scaling of egg size and lifetime fecundity may depend on whether care consists of provisioning (density-dependent offspring survival) or merely guarding (density-independent offspring survival). Against expectation, egg size was indistinguishable among parental care modes, covarying only with body size. This refutes most theory of egg size evolution under parental care. Lifetime fecundity scaled differently depending on parental investment-positively under no care and guarding, as in most ectotherms, but negatively under provisioning. Reproductive allocation in provisioning insects resembled that in mammals and birds, also groups with obligate provisioning. We propose that the metabolic demands of multiple offspring must scale with species body size more steeply than the parent's provisioning capacity, resulting in larger females laying fewer eggs. These patterns lay the groundwork for a more general understanding of parental care and life history.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20528469     DOI: 10.1086/653661

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Nat        ISSN: 0003-0147            Impact factor:   3.926


  14 in total

1.  Life history and the evolutionary loss of parental care.

Authors:  Isimeme N Udu; Michael B Bonsall; Hope Klug
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 5.530

2.  The evolution of parental care in salamanders.

Authors:  Balázs Vági; Daniel Marsh; Gergely Katona; Zsolt Végvári; Robert P Freckleton; András Liker; Tamás Székely
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  Brood care in a 100-million-year-old scale insect.

Authors:  Bo Wang; Fangyuan Xia; Torsten Wappler; Ewa Simon; Haichun Zhang; Edmund A Jarzembowski; Jacek Szwedo
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 8.140

4.  The evolution of parental care in insects: A test of current hypotheses.

Authors:  James D J Gilbert; Andrea Manica
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 3.694

5.  Subsocial Neotropical Doryphorini (Chrysomelidae, Chrysomelinae): new observations on behavior, host plants and systematics.

Authors:  Donald M Windsor; Guillaume J Dury; Fernando A Frieiro-Costa; Jacques M Pasteels
Journal:  Zookeys       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 1.546

6.  The importance of having a partner: male help releases females from time limitation during incubation in birds.

Authors:  Beata Matysioková; Vladimír Remeš
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 3.172

7.  Egg Production Constrains Chemical Defenses in a Neotropical Arachnid.

Authors:  Taís M Nazareth; Glauco Machado
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Trade-offs in the evolution of bumblebee colony and body size: a comparative analysis.

Authors:  Raúl Cueva Del Castillo; Salomón Sanabria-Urbán; Martín Alejandro Serrano-Meneses
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 2.912

9.  Bigger mothers are better mothers: disentangling size-related prenatal and postnatal maternal effects.

Authors:  Sandra Steiger
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Mother and offspring fitness in an insect with maternal care: phenotypic trade-offs between egg number, egg mass and egg care.

Authors:  Lisa K Koch; Joël Meunier
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 3.260

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.