| Literature DB >> 27559356 |
Joel L Pick1, Pascale Hutter1, Christina Ebneter1, Ann-Kathrin Ziegler1, Marta Giordano1, Barbara Tschirren1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The amount of resources provided by the mother before birth has important and long-lasting effects on offspring fitness. Despite this, there is a large amount of variation in maternal investment seen in natural populations. Life-history theory predicts that this variation is maintained through a trade-off between the benefits of high maternal investment for the offspring and the costs of high investment for the mother. However, the proximate mechanisms underlying these costs of reproduction are not well understood. Here we used artificial selection for high and low maternal egg investment in a precocial bird, the Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) to quantify costs of maternal reproductive investment.Entities:
Keywords: Cost of reproduction; Egg size; Life history evolution; Maintenance of variation; Maternal investment; Oxidative stress
Year: 2016 PMID: 27559356 PMCID: PMC4995767 DOI: 10.1186/s12983-016-0172-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Zool ISSN: 1742-9994 Impact factor: 3.172
Body composition, metabolic rate (RMR) and oxidative damage (ROMs) of breeding and non-breeding females
| Trait | Breeding | Non Breeding |
| df |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Generation 4 | |||||
| Body Mass | |||||
| Total Body Mass (g) | 288 ± 35 | 258 ± 28 |
|
|
|
| Non-Repro. Mass (g) | 262 ± 33 | 258 ± 28 | 0.36 | 11.07 | 0.724 |
| Body Size | |||||
| Tarsus Length (mm) | 40.0 ± 1.4 | 39.8 ± 1.1 | 0.38 | 12.09 | 0.712 |
| Reproductive and Associated Organs | |||||
| Repro. Organs (g) | 15.18 ± 1.73 | 0.31 ± 0.12 |
|
| < |
| Liver (g) | 7.98 ± 1.06 | 4.66 ± 0.80 |
|
| < |
| Protein and Lipid Reserves | |||||
| Pectoral Muscles (g) | 51.85 ± 7.53 | 51.38 ± 4.67 | 0.08 | 14.43 | 0.939 |
| Body Fat (g) | 4.96 ± 3.00 | 8.59 ± 3.94 | − |
|
|
| Generation 5 | |||||
| Body Mass (g)1 | 254 ± 20 | 240 ± 17 |
|
| < |
| RMR (mL O2 min−1) | 6.01 ± 0.67 | 3.52 ± 0.37 |
|
| < |
| ROMs (mM H2O2) | 0.882 ± 0.263 | 0.801 ± 0.228 | 1.22 | 27 | 0.232 |
Means ± SD are shown. In generation 4, females were measured once, either in breeding (N = 65) or in non-breeding (N = 10) condition. In generation 5, females (N =29) were measured twice, once in breeding and once in non-breeding condition. Repro. is abbreviation for Reproductive. Significant results are displayed in bold
1The difference in body mass between the two states is less than in generation 4 due to measuring the birds at different times of day (here the majority of females had already laid an egg)
Difference in body composition of breeding females between selection lines, correcting for replicate and body size
| Trait | Line | Replicate | Tarsus Length | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| df |
|
| df |
|
| df |
| |
| Body Mass | |||||||||
| Total Body Mass | 3.33 | 52 | 0.074 | 0.51 | 51 | 0.480 |
|
| < |
| Non-Repro. Mass | 1.92 | 62 | 0.171 | 0.34 | 61 | 0.561 |
|
| < |
| Reproductive and Associated Organs | |||||||||
| Repro. Organs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| < |
| Liver | 0.94 | 62 | 0.336 | 0.02 | 61 | 0.891 |
|
|
|
| Protein and Lipid Reserves | |||||||||
| Pectoral Muscles | 1.65 | 61 | 0.204 |
|
| < |
|
| < |
| Body Fat | 0.00 | 32 | 0.958 | - | - | - | 0.00 | 31 | 0.994 |
Significant results are displayed in bold. DF is the denominator degrees of freedom. Numerator degrees of freedom was 1 in all cases. Repro. is abbreviation for Reproductive
Difference between the selection lines in body mass (BM), metabolic rate (RMR) and oxidative damage (ROMs) according to breeding status
| Trait | Model | Line | Status | Line x Status | Replicate | Age | Tarsus Length | Body Mass | RMR | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| BM | a | - | - | - | - |
|
| 0.19 | 0.665 | 0.88 | 0.347 |
|
| - | - | - | - |
| RMR | a | - | - | - | - |
|
| 0.21 | 0.646 | 0.00 | 0.947 | 2.17 | 0.141 | - | - | - | - |
| b | 0.16 | 0.688 |
| < | 1.10 | 0.294 | 0.12 | 0.734 | 0.45 | 0.503 | - | - |
| < | - | - | |
| ROMs | a | 0.06 | 0.802 | 1.85 | 0.174 | 3.08 | 0.079 | 3.08 | 0.079 | 2.00 | 0.158 | 1.07 | 0.300 | - | - | - | - |
| b | 0.28 | 0.596 | 1.87 | 0.172 | 3.20 | 0.074 | 3.44 | 0.064 | 1.69 | 0.193 | - | - | 0.02 | 0.880 | - | - | |
| c | 0.55 | 0.459 | 0.27 | 0.607 | 3.19 | 0.074 | 3.67 | 0.056 | 1.68 | 0.195 | - | - | - | - | 1.14 | 0.287 | |
Significant results are displayed in bold. For metabolic rate and oxidative damage, several models were run, including a) tarsus length, b) body mass and c) metabolic rate as covariates. In all models df = 1
Fig. 1The effect of selection line and breeding status on a) body mass, b) metabolic rate (RMR) and c) oxidative damage (ROMs)
Correlations between individual differences in body mass, metabolic rate (RMR) and oxidative damage (ROMs) between breeding and non-breeding condition, egg size and tarsus length
| ∆ Body Mass | ∆ RMR | ∆ ROMs | Egg Size | Tarsus Length | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ∆ Body Mass | - |
| 0.822 |
| 0.309 |
| ∆ RMR | 0.539 | - | 0.439 |
| 0.292 |
| ∆ ROMs | 0.045 | −0.152 | - | 0.436 | 0.558 |
| Egg Size | 0.726 | 0.483 | −0.153 | - | 0.082 |
| Tarsus Length | 0.213 | 0.205 | −0.116 | 0.318 | - |
Below the diagonal Pearson correlation coefficients are displayed, above the diagonal the P value. Significant results are displayed in bold