| Literature DB >> 22870251 |
Jeremy Atkinson1, R Nathan Pipitone, Agnieszka Sorokowska, Piotr Sorokowski, Mara Mberira, Astrid Bartels, Gordon G Gallup.
Abstract
Evolutionary accounts of human traits are often based on proxies for genetic fitness (e.g., number of sex partners, facial attractiveness). Instead of using proxies, actual differences in reproductive success is a more direct measure of darwinian fitness. Certain voice acoustics such as fundamental frequency and measures of health such as handgrip strength correlate with proxies of fitness, yet there are few studies showing the relation of these traits to reproduction. Here, we explore whether the fundamental frequency of the voice and handgrip strength account for differences in actual reproduction among a population of natural fertility humans. Our results show that both fundamental frequency and handgrip strength predict several measures of reproductive success among a group of indigenous Namibian females, particularly amongst the elderly, with weight also predicting reproductive outcomes among males. These findings demonstrate that both hormonally regulated and phenotypic quality markers can be used as measures of darwinian fitness among humans living under conditions that resemble the evolutionary environment of Homo sapiens. We also argue that these findings provide support for the Grandmother Hypothesis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22870251 PMCID: PMC3411669 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041811
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Descriptive statistics of variables used in the study.
| children | grandchildren | genetic vectors | age | fundamental frequency (Hz) | height (cm) | weight (kg) | handgrip strength (bars) | |
| males | ||||||||
| mean | 4.83 | 2.13 | 5.9 | 50.36 | 145.48 | 174.44 | 65.83 | 6.04 |
| s.d. | 3.53 | 3.03 | 4.44 | 18.1 | 21.94 | 7.2 | 9.63 | 1.54 |
| N = 36 | ||||||||
| females | ||||||||
| mean | 3.43 | 1.75 | 4.33 | 41.57 | 236.59 | 165.61 | 63.8 | 4.5 |
| s.d. | 2.34 | 3.09 | 3.25 | 18.7 | 38.17 | 5.2 | 10.58 | 1.41 |
| N = 54 |
Note: Genetic vectors composes of the total number of surviving children plus the number of grandchildren weighted by the presence of shared genes, or (number of children + (.5×grandchildren)).
Hierarchical regression analyses: Variables predicting genetic vectors and number of children (in parentheses) for females (N = 54).
| model 1 | model 2 | model 3 | ||||||||
| variable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| age | .279 | .119 | 1.602 | .298 | .113 | 1.714 | .265 | .110 | 1.52 | |
| (.311) | (.091) | (2.49) | (.323) | (.089) | (2.58) | (.295) | (.085) | (2.36) | ||
| age2 | −002 | .001 | −1.080 | −.002 | .001 | −1.144 | −.002 | .001 | −.821 | |
| (−.003) | (.001) | (−2.23) | (-.003) | (.001) | (−2.28) | (−.003) | (.001) | (−1.9) | ||
|
| .024 | .009 |
| .025 | .009 |
| ||||
| (.014) | (.007) |
| (.015) | (.007) |
| |||||
|
| .075 | .032 |
| |||||||
| (.063) | (.025) |
| ||||||||
p<.05.
p<.01 all tests are one-tailed.
Age, age2 were entered as control variables. The effects of height and weight were also removed from handgrip strength before the analysis. Fundamental frequency and handgrip strength were entered as target variables (bold). Genetic vectors composes of the total number of surviving children plus the number of grandchildren (halved because of genetic relatedness), or (number of children + (.5×grandchildren)).
Hierarchical regression analyses: Variables predicting genetic vectors and number of children (in parentheses) for males (N = 36).
| model 1 | model 2 | model 3 | |||||||||
| variable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| age | .606 | .219 | 2.47 | .611 | .222 | 2.489 | .654 | .24 | 2.667 | ||
| (.618) | (.178) | (3.18) | (.627) | (.179) | (3.22) | (.63) | (.194) | (3.23) | |||
| age2 | −005 | .002 | −1.936 | −.005 | .002 | −1.943 | −.005 | .002 | −2.047 | ||
| (−006) | (.002) | (−2.77) | (−.006) | (.002) | (−2.79) | (−.006) | (.002) | (−2.79) | |||
|
| −.01 | .028 |
| .008 | .029 |
| |||||
| (−.018) | (.023) |
| (−.018) | (.023) |
| ||||||
|
| .032 | .061 |
| ||||||||
| (.003) | (.05) |
| |||||||||
p<.05.
p<.01 all tests are one-tailed.
Age, age2 were entered as control variables. The effects of height and weight were also removed from handgrip strength before the analysis. Fundamental frequency and handgrip strength were entered as target variables (bold). Genetic vectors composes of the total number of surviving children plus the number of grandchildren (halved because of genetic relatedness), or (number of children + (.5×grandchildren)).
Figure 1The relationship between Himba female genetic vectors and fundamental frequency.
Residual values from regression of genetic vectors with age and age2 removed, plotted against differences in fundamental frequency. As fundamental frequency increased, so did Himba female genetic vectors, over and above age variables.
Summary of significant findings (β = standardized regression coefficients) for fundamental frequency and residualized handgrip strength predicting reproductive success variables when entered simultaneously into regression models.
| variables | children ( | grandchildren ( | genetic vectors ( | grandchildren (controlling for children)( |
|
| ||||
| fundamental frequency |
|
|
|
|
| residualized handgrip strength |
| N.S. |
| N.S. |
|
| ||||
| fundamental frequency |
|
|
|
|
| residualized handgrip strength |
| N.S. |
| N.S. |
|
| ||||
| fundamental frequency |
|
|
|
|
| residualized handgrip strength |
| N.S. |
| N.S. |
p<.05.
p<.01.
Figure 2The relationship between Himba female genetic vectors and handgrip strength.
Residual values from regression of genetic vectors with age, age2, and fundamental frequency removed, plotted against differences in handgrip strength residuals. As handgrip strength increased, so did Himba female genetic vectors, over and above the other predictor variables.