Literature DB >> 28393457

Causes and consequences of variation in offspring body mass: meta-analyses in birds and mammals.

Victor Ronget1, Jean-Michel Gaillard1, Tim Coulson2, Michael Garratt3, François Gueyffier1, Jean-Christophe Lega1, Jean-François Lemaître1.   

Abstract

Early survival is highly variable and strongly influences observed population growth rates in most vertebrate populations. One of the major potential drivers of survival variation among juveniles is body mass. Heavy juveniles are better fed and have greater body reserves, and are thus assumed to survive better than light individuals. In spite of this, some studies have failed to detect an influence of body mass on offspring survival, questioning whether offspring body mass does indeed consistently influence juvenile survival, or whether this occurs in particular species/environments. Furthermore, the causes for variation in offspring mass are poorly understood, although maternal mass has often been reported to play a crucial role. To understand why offspring differ in body mass, and how this influences juvenile survival, we performed phylogenetically corrected meta-analyses of both the relationship between offspring body mass and offspring survival in birds and mammals and the relationship between maternal mass and offspring mass in mammals. We found strong support for an overall positive effect of offspring body mass on survival, with a more pronounced influence in mammals than in birds. An increase of one standard deviation of body mass increased the odds of offspring survival by 71% in mammals and by 44% in birds. A cost of being too fat in birds in terms of flight performance might explain why body mass is a less reliable predictor of offspring survival in birds. We then looked for moderators explaining the among-study differences reported in the intensity of this relationship. Surprisingly, sex did not influence the intensity of the offspring mass-survival relationship and phylogeny only accounted for a small proportion of observed variation in the intensity of that relationship. Among the potential factors that might affect the relationship between mass and survival in juveniles, only environmental conditions was influential in mammals. Offspring survival was most strongly influenced by body mass in captive populations and wild populations in the absence of predation. We also found support for the expected positive effect of maternal mass on offspring mass in mammals (rpearson  = 0.387). As body mass is a strong predictor of early survival, we expected heavier mothers to allocate more to their offspring, leading them to be heavier and so to have a higher survival. However, none of the potential factors we tested for variation in the maternal mass-offspring mass relationship had a detectable influence. Further studies should focus on linking these two relationships to determine whether a strong effect of offspring size on early survival is associated with a high correlation coefficient between maternal mass and offspring mass.
© 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society.

Keywords:  body size; early survival; individual heterogeneity; maternal allocation; maternal size

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28393457     DOI: 10.1111/brv.12329

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc        ISSN: 0006-3231


  14 in total

1.  Sons accelerate maternal aging in a wild mammal.

Authors:  Mathieu Douhard; Marco Festa-Bianchet; Fanie Pelletier
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Seychelles warblers with silver spoons: Juvenile body mass is a lifelong predictor of annual survival, but not annual reproduction or senescence.

Authors:  Thomas J Brown; Hannah L Dugdale; Martijn Hammers; Jan Komdeur; David S Richardson
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-07-03       Impact factor: 3.167

Review 3.  What have humans done for evolutionary biology? Contributions from genes to populations.

Authors:  Michael Briga; Robert M Griffin; Vérane Berger; Jenni E Pettay; Virpi Lummaa
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  A meta-analysis of birth-origin effects on reproduction in diverse captive environments.

Authors:  Katherine A Farquharson; Carolyn J Hogg; Catherine E Grueber
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 14.919

5.  Between-population differences in the genetic and maternal components of body mass in roe deer.

Authors:  E Quéméré; J M Gaillard; M Galan; C Vanpé; I David; M Pellerin; P Kjellander; A J M Hewison; J M Pemberton
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 3.260

6.  Incubation Temperature Affects Duckling Body Size and Food Consumption Despite No Effect on Associated Feeding Behaviors.

Authors:  S F Hope; R A Kennamer; A T Grimaudo; J J Hallagan; W A Hopkins
Journal:  Integr Org Biol       Date:  2020-02-05

7.  Sources of variation in maternal allocation in a long-lived mammal.

Authors:  Kaitlin R Macdonald; Jay J Rotella; Robert A Garrott; William A Link
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 5.091

8.  Terrestrial reproduction and parental care drive rapid evolution in the trade-off between offspring size and number across amphibians.

Authors:  Andrew I Furness; Chris Venditti; Isabella Capellini
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 8.029

9.  Fear of predators in free-living wildlife reduces population growth over generations.

Authors:  Marek C Allen; Michael Clinchy; Liana Y Zanette
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Living on the edge - circadian habitat usage in pre-weaning European hares (Lepus europaeus) in an intensively used agricultural area.

Authors:  Ulrich Voigt; Ursula Siebert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-09-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.