| Literature DB >> 24580655 |
A D Hayward1, K U Mar, M Lahdenperä, V Lummaa.
Abstract
The evolutionary theory of senescence posits that as the probability of extrinsic mortality increases with age, selection should favour early-life over late-life reproduction. Studies on natural vertebrate populations show early reproduction may impair later-life performance, but the consequences for lifetime fitness have rarely been determined, and little is known of whether similar patterns apply to mammals which typically live for several decades. We used a longitudinal dataset on Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) to investigate associations between early-life reproduction and female age-specific survival, fecundity and offspring survival to independence, as well as lifetime breeding success (lifetime number of calves produced). Females showed low fecundity following sexual maturity, followed by a rapid increase to a peak at age 19 and a subsequent decline. High early life reproductive output (before the peak of performance) was positively associated with subsequent age-specific fecundity and offspring survival, but significantly impaired a female's own later-life survival. Despite the negative effects of early reproduction on late-life survival, early reproduction is under positive selection through a positive association with lifetime breeding success. Our results suggest a trade-off between early reproduction and later survival which is maintained by strong selection for high early fecundity, and thus support the prediction from life history theory that high investment in reproductive success in early life is favoured by selection through lifetime fitness despite costs to later-life survival. That maternal survival in elephants depends on previous reproductive investment also has implications for the success of (semi-)captive breeding programmes of this endangered species.Entities:
Keywords: ageing; antagonistic pleiotropy; disposable soma; reproductive costs, senescence; trade-off
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24580655 PMCID: PMC4237172 DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Evol Biol ISSN: 1010-061X Impact factor: 2.411
A comparison of models analyzing ageing-related variation in annual breeding success in females aged 5–50. All models were generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs) with binomial errors and logit link function. Models were compared using AIC values, where the best-supported model has the lowest AIC value and is shown in bold italics. ΔAIC values are shown relative to the best-supported model. Only the best one- and two-threshold models are shown; the remaining one- and two-threshold models are shown in the Supporting Information (Tables S1 and S2 respectively). Analysis was performed on 12 789 records from 416 female elephants.
| (Model) structure | AIC | ΔAIC | LogLik | vs. | d.f. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (0) BASE | 7628.35 | 552.43 | −3808.2 | ||||
| (1) Age | 7483.12 | 407.21 | −3735.6 | 0 | 1 | 147.2 | <0.001 |
| (2) Age2 | 7207.24 | 131.32 | −3596.6 | 1 | 1 | 278 | <0.001 |
| (3) Age3 | 7102.93 | 26.02 | −3542.0 | 2 | 1 | 107.2 | <0.001 |
| (17) Threshold = 17 | 7083.87 | 6.95 | −3532.4 | 3 | 2 | 19.2 | <0.001 |
| − |
Parameter estimates from the statistically best-supported binomial generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs) for age-specific change in annual breeding success. Model 1218 from Table1 is shown, analyzing 12 789 records from 416 female elephants. Parameter estimates and standard errors (SE) are shown on the logit scale. ‘Age: AgeGroup (X)’ denotes an interaction between age as a linear covariate and age group, where the numbers in parentheses indicate the boundaries of the grouping. Note that age at first reproduction, age at last observation (LastAge) and Age were divided by 100 to aid model convergence.
| Variable | Estimate | SE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed effects | ||||
| Intercept | −6.3010 | 1.1694 | −5.39 | <0.001 |
| Censored (0) | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||
| Censored (1) | 0.0086 | 0.0781 | 0.11 | 0.913 |
| AFR | −7.5900 | 0.6895 | −11.01 | <0.001 |
| LastAge | −0.5665 | 0.4588 | −1.24 | 0.217 |
| Age | 29.4712 | 11.4487 | 2.57 | 0.010 |
| AgeGroup (5–12) | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||
| AgeGroup (13–18) | 1.8569 | 1.3511 | 1.37 | 0.169 |
| AgeGroup (19+) | 6.4823 | 1.1651 | 5.56 | <0.001 |
| Age: AgeGroup (5–12) | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||
| Age: AgeGroup (13–18) | −5.8405 | 12.2471 | −0.48 | 0.633 |
| Age: AgeGroup (19+) | −30.7517 | 11.4613 | −2.68 | 0.007 |
| Random effects | ||||
| ID | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||
| Year | 0.0125 | 0.0150 | ||
Figure 1Mean annual breeding success varied significantly with age across the lifespan of female Asian elephants aged 5–50. The raw age-specific means (closed symbols ± 1 SE) suggest an initial increase, followed by a peak and subsequent decline. Also shown are predictions from Model 1218, the best fitting generalized linear mixed-effects model in Table1 (black lines). The predictions are drawn from the estimates in Table2 and are for an individual of mean age at first reproduction and last age recorded.
Figure 2Early-life fecundity was associated with survival rates between the ages of 19 and 50. Of 213 individuals that did not reproduce before the age of 19 (black line), only 35 (16.43%) were dead by the age of 50, while 50 (26.60%) of the 188 individuals who did reproduce before age 19 (grey line) were dead by age 50. The best-fitting Cox proportional hazard model (Table2) suggested that this was a significant difference. Overall, of the 401 individuals who were alive at 19, 85 (21.20%) died before the age of 50. These survival rates to age 50 are high as all individuals included in this analysis survived to age 19, and thus had survived the period of greatest mortality (Mar ).
A comparison of models analyzing variation in annual breeding success and calf survival in females aged 19 and over. All models were generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs) with binomial errors and logit link function. Models were compared using AIC values, where the best-supported model for each trait is shown in bold italics. ΔAIC values are shown relative to the best-supported model. ELF(2) groups individuals by their early-life fecundity based on whether they reproduced in early life; ELF(3) is a factor grouping individuals based on whether they had 0, 1 or 2 or more calves before age 19 (see Materials and methods). For annual breeding success, we analyzed 7044 records from 401 reproductive females who survived at least until age 19; for calf survival, we analyzed 744 calves born to 333 mothers after the age of 19.
| Model | Structure | Breeding success | Calf survival | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIC | ΔAIC | AIC | ΔAIC | ||
| 0 | Null | 5526.22 | 3.32 | 842.95 | 22.24 |
| 1 | Age | 839.51 | 18.80 | ||
| 2 | Age2 | 5524.46 | 1.57 | 838.17 | 17.46 |
| 3 | Age3 | 5526.07 | 3.18 | 830.50 | 9.79 |
| 4 | ELF(3) | 5526.74 | 3.84 | 834.68 | 13.97 |
| 5 | ELF(2) | 5526.16 | 3.26 | 844.94 | 24.23 |
| 6 | ELF(3) + Age | 5523.09 | 0.19 | 829.25 | 8.54 |
| 7 | ELF(3) + Age2 | 5524.65 | 1.76 | 829.79 | 9.08 |
| 8 | ELF(3) + Age3 | 5526.24 | 3.35 | ||
| 9 | ELF(2) + Age | 5522.66 | −0.24 | 841.36 | 20.65 |
| 10 | ELF(2) + Age2 | 5524.22 | 1.32 | 840.03 | 19.32 |
| 11 | ELF(2) + Age3 | 5525.83 | 2.93 | 832.21 | 11.50 |
| 12 | ELF(3): Age + Age | 5522.35 | −0.54 | 832.89 | 12.18 |
| 13 | ELF(3): Age + Age2 | 5523.86 | 0.96 | 833.31 | 12.60 |
| 14 | ELF(3): Age + Age3 | 5525.47 | 2.57 | 823.73 | 3.02 |
| 15 | ELF(2): Age + Age | 5522.97 | 0.07 | 843.28 | 22.57 |
| 16 | ELF(2): Age + Age2 | 5524.52 | 1.62 | 841.90 | 21.19 |
| 17 | ELF(2): Age + Age3 | 5526.16 | 3.26 | 834.18 | 13.47 |
ELF, early life fecundity.
Figure 3The association between female age and the survival rate of their calves to age 5. The raw age-specific means (closed symbols ± 1 SE) suggest a survival rate of calves of around 70% until the age of 40, at which point a steep decline is observed. Age groups are binned to 5-year intervals, such that 20 = ages 19–20; 25 = ages 21–25…..50 = ages 46–50. The black line shows the estimated age effect from Model 8 in Table3, with the prediction generated for an individual of mean AFR and age at last observation. The apparent discrepancy between raw data and model estimates is due to the fact that the model estimates account for variation between AFR, age at last observation and area of origin, all of which will affect the elevation of the slope.