Literature DB >> 23675944

How should parents adjust the size of their young in response to local environmental cues?

B Kuijper1, R A Johnstone.   

Abstract

Models of parental investment typically assume that populations are well mixed and homogeneous and have devoted little attention to the impact of spatial variation in the local environment. Here, in a patch-structured model with limited dispersal, we assess to what extent resource-rich and resource-poor mothers should alter the size of their young in response to the local environment in their patch. We show that limited dispersal leads to a correlation between maternal and offspring environments, which favours plastic adjustment of offspring size in response to local survival risk. Strikingly, however, resource-poor mothers are predicted to respond more strongly to local survival risk, whereas resource-rich mothers are predicted to respond less strongly. This lack of sensitivity on the part of resource-rich mothers is favoured because they accrue much of their fitness through dispersing young. By contrast, resource-poor mothers accrue a larger fraction of their fitness through philopatric young and should therefore respond more strongly to local risk. Mothers with more resources gain a larger share of their fitness through dispersing young partly because their fitness in the local patch is constrained by the limited number of local breeding spots. In addition, when resource variation occurs at the patch level, the philopatric offspring of resource-rich mothers face stronger competition from the offspring of other local mothers, who also enjoy abundant resources. The effect of limited local breeding opportunities becomes less pronounced as patch size increases, but the impact of patch-level variation in resources holds up even with many breeders per patch.
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Evolutionary Biology © 2013 European Society For Evolutionary Biology.

Keywords:  inclusive fitness; life history evolution; maternal effects; nongenetic effects; offspring size; theory

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23675944     DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12156

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Evol Biol        ISSN: 1010-061X            Impact factor:   2.411


  9 in total

1.  When is incomplete epigenetic resetting in germ cells favoured by natural selection?

Authors:  Tobias Uller; Sinead English; Ido Pen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  The evolution of early-life effects on social behaviour-why should social adversity carry over to the future?

Authors:  Bram Kuijper; Rufus A Johnstone
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Egg size investment in superb fairy-wrens: helper effects are modulated by climate.

Authors:  N E Langmore; L D Bailey; R G Heinsohn; A F Russell; R M Kilner
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Evolution of epigenetic transmission when selection acts on fecundity versus viability.

Authors:  Bram Kuijper; Rufus A Johnstone
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 6.671

5.  Conflict over condition-dependent sex allocation can lead to mixed sex-determination systems.

Authors:  Bram Kuijper; Ido Pen
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2014-10-20       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  When to rely on maternal effects and when on phenotypic plasticity?

Authors:  Bram Kuijper; Rebecca B Hoyle
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 3.694

7.  Maternal effects on offspring size and number in mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki.

Authors:  Rose E O'Dea; Regina Vega-Trejo; Megan L Head; Michael D Jennions
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  The evolution of multivariate maternal effects.

Authors:  Bram Kuijper; Rufus A Johnstone; Stuart Townley
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 4.475

9.  Fitness consequences of maternal and grandmaternal effects.

Authors:  Roshan Prizak; Thomas H G Ezard; Rebecca B Hoyle
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2014-07-19       Impact factor: 2.912

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.