| Literature DB >> 28839275 |
Anni Hämäläinen1, Andrew G McAdam2, Ben Dantzer3,4, Jeffrey E Lane5, Jessica A Haines6, Murray M Humphries7, Stan Boutin6.
Abstract
The age trajectory of reproductive performance of many iteroparous species features an early - life increase in performance followed by a late - life senescent decline. The largest contribution of lifetime reproductive success is therefore gained at the age at which reproductive performance peaks. Using long term data on North American red squirrels we show that the environmental conditions individuals encountered could cause variation among individuals in the "height" and timing of this peak, contributing to life history variation and fitness in this population that experiences irregular resource pulses. As expected, high peak effort was positively associated with lifetime reproductive output up to a high level of annual effort. Furthermore, individuals that matched their peak reproductive effort to an anticipated resource pulse gained substantial fitness benefits through recruiting more offspring over their lifetime. Individual variation in peak reproductive effort thus has strong potential to shape life history evolution by facilitating adaptation to fluctuating environments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28839275 PMCID: PMC5571191 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09724-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Maximum annual # of pups (maximum effort) has a significant effect on lifetime number of (a) pups and (b) recruits produced by red squirrel females. Lifetime reproductive success is improved by an increasing maximum effort up to (a) 11 pups for lifetime number of pups, and up to (b) 9 pups for lifetime number of recruits. A plateau or even declining reproductive success follows if maximum effort exceeds this threshold. Note that the models are based on scaled maximum # annual pups (x-axis top row), with the corresponding scale of actual maximum number of pups (1–15) indicated below, on the bottom row of the axis. Gray points indicate raw data with a small amount of jitter introduced to show overlapping points. The lines show the predicted effect of maximum effort on lifetime reproductive output (correcting for lifespan and age at primiparity), from the model for females that began breeding as yearlings (solid black line) or at age 2 years or above (solid gray line). Standard errors represented by the surrounding dashed lines. The dotted line in (a) indicates the null hypothesis of slope 1, as lifetime # pups must be equal to or larger than the maximum annual # pups produced. The insets summarize the raw data, with the points indicating means and the associated error bars the standard deviation of lifetime reproductive output for each level of peak effort.
The effect of maximum reproductive effort (maximum annual # pups) on lifetime reproductive success in terms of total number of pups produced over the lifetime (Poisson GLMM), and total number of recruited offspring over the lifetime (Negative binomial GLMM), based on the best models.
| β | Back-transformed estimate | CI 2.5% | CI 97.5% | Z | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pups* | Intercept | 1.780 | 1.719 | 1.832 | 39.7 | <0.001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Peak age | 0.022 | 2.223 | −2.228 | 2.278 | 0.8 | 0.408 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Recruits† | Intercept | 0.184 | −0.014 | 0.342 | 2.09 | <0.001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant results in bold. Back-transformed estimates and associated confidence intervals (CI) as well as the scaled estimate are given for parameters that were scaled for the analysis, and untransformed intervals are provided for un-scaled terms. *Poisson GLMM, N = 548 females; Random effect: Cohort (N = 24) variance = 0.000 ± 0.016. †Negative binomial GLMM, N = 548 females; Random effect: Cohort (N = 24) variance = 0.070 ± 0.265; Negative binomial dispersion parameter = 11.2. ‡Reference value: delayed; i.e. positive value indicates a higher lifetime reproductive success of females that began breeding as yearlings.
Costs of peak reproductive effort.
| β | Back-transformed estimate | CI 2.5% | CI 97.5% | Statistic | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post-peak survival* | Intercept | 2.2245 | 1.727 | 2.721 | 9.12 | <0.001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Post-peak reproduction† | Intercept | 1.0494 | 0.732 | 1.321 | 6.95 | <0.001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predictions for post-peak effort (total # of pups produced after the peak) and survival (post-peak lifespan) depending on the level of maximum effort, age at peak and whether or not maximum effort was expended in a mast year. Post-peak survival was analysed with a Gaussian LMM (test statistic = t), post-peak reproduction with a Poisson GLMM (test statistic = z). Back-transformed estimates and associated confidence intervals (CI) as well as the scaled estimate are given for parameters that were scaled for the analysis, and untransformed intervals are provided for un-scaled terms. N = 260 individuals from 23 cohorts. *Random effect, cohort: variance = 0.925 ± 0.962. †Random effect, cohort: variance = 0.422 ± 0.65.