| Literature DB >> 30518574 |
Melissa L Grunst1,2, Andrea S Grunst1,2, Vincent A Formica1,3, Marisa L Korody1,4, Adam M Betuel1,5, Margarida Barcelo-Serra1, Rusty A Gonser6, Elaina M Tuttle1.
Abstract
It is often hypothesized that intra-sexual competition accelerates actuarial senescence, or the increase in mortality rates with age. However, an alternative hypothesis is that parental investment is more important to determining senescence rates. We used a unique model system, the white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), to study variation in actuarial senescence. In this species, genetically determined morphs display discrete mating strategies and disassortative pairing, providing an excellent opportunity to test the predictions of the above hypotheses. Compared to tan-striped males, white-striped males are more polygynous and aggressive, and less parental. Tan-striped females receive less parental support, and invest more into parental care than white-striped females, which are also more aggressive. Thus, higher senescence rates in males and white-striped birds would support the intra-sexual competition hypothesis, whereas higher senescence rates in females and tan-striped birds would support the parental investment hypothesis. White-striped males showed the lowest rate of actuarial senescence. Tan-striped females had the highest senescence rate, and tan-striped males and white-striped females showed intermediate, relatively equal rates. Thus, results were inconsistent with sexual selection and competitive strategies increasing senescence rates, and instead indicate that senescence may be accelerated by female-biased parental care, and lessened by sharing of parental duties.Entities:
Keywords: actuarial senescence; reproductive strategies; sexual selection; white-throated sparrow
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30518574 PMCID: PMC6283936 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2018.2053
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Biol Sci ISSN: 0962-8452 Impact factor: 5.349
Coefficient estimates, 95% credible intervals and Kullback–Leiber discrepancy calibration values (KLDC) for BaSTA model parameters for the model with all four morph–sex types. a0 and a1 = bathtub parameters, c = Makeham parameter, b0 = Weibull shape parameter, b1 = Weibull scale parameter. Bold KLDC values indicate significant (greater than 95%) differences in posterior distributions.
| KLDC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| estimate | 95% CI | TM | WF | WM | |
| −3.633 | −5.059, −2.445 | 0.503 | 0.512 | 0.505 | |
| −3.694 | −5.101, −2.573 | 0.523 | 0.500 | ||
| −3.498 | −4.813, −2.430 | 0.529 | |||
| −3.719 | −5.068, −2.633 | ||||
| 0.909 | 0.693, 0.037 | 0.501 | 0.500 | 0.500 | |
| 0.932 | 0.725, 0.031 | 0.500 | 0.504 | ||
| 0.944 | 0.688, 0.039 | 0.502 | |||
| 0.880 | 0.678, 0.035 | ||||
| 0.023 | 0.001, 0.089 | 0.511 | 0.509 | 0.519 | |
| 0.021 | 0.001, 0.076 | 0.540 | 0.501 | ||
| 0.026 | 0.001, 0.095 | 0.554 | |||
| 0.020 | 0.004, 0.071 | ||||
| 1.973 | 1.704, 2.284 | 0.593 | 0.530 | 0.746 | |
| 1.880 | 1.613, 2.165 | 0.528 | 0.559 | ||
| 1.921 | 1.614, 2.269 | 0.642 | |||
| 1.816 | 1.581, 2.086 | ||||
| 0.354 | 0.313, 0.396 | 0.912 | |||
| 0.299 | 0.262, 0.338 | 0.612 | 0.928 | ||
| 0.313 | 0.267, 0.358 | ||||
| 0.263 | 0.227, 0.296 | ||||
Figure 1.Estimated age-dependent survival probability and mortality hazards for the (i) sexes, (ii) morphs and (iii) four morph–sex classes from a Weibull model with a bathtub shape. Coloured regions show 95% credible intervals. Posterior distributions for the bathtub parameters (a0 and a1), Makeham parameter (c), Weibull shape parameter (b0), and Weibull scale parameter (b1) are shown to the left. (Online version in colour.)
Life tables for the four morph–sex classes: tan females (TF), white females (WF), tan males (TM) and white males (WM). n = number alive at start of interval, l = proportion surviving at start of interval, d = number of deaths in interval, q = death rate in interval, e = remaining life expectancy at end of interval.
| age | age | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | 127 | 1.0 | 73 | 0.574 | 1.405 | 1–2 | 106 | 1 | 50 | 0.471 | 1.698 |
| 2–3 | 54 | 0.425 | 23 | 0.425 | 1.629 | 2–3 | 56 | 0.528 | 19 | 0.339 | 1.767 |
| 3–4 | 31 | 0.244 | 11 | 0.354 | 1.467 | 3–4 | 37 | 0.349 | 18 | 0.486 | 1.418 |
| 4–5 | 20 | 0.157 | 12 | 0.6 | 1 | 4–5 | 19 | 0.179 | 11 | 0.578 | 1.289 |
| 5–6 | 8 | 0.062 | 6 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 5–6 | 8 | 0.075 | 5 | 0.625 | 1.375 |
| 6–7 | 2 | 0.015 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 6–7 | 3 | 0.028 | 1 | 0.333 | 1.833 |
| 7–8 | 2 | 0.018 | 0 | 0 | 1.5 | ||||||
| 8–9 | 2 | 0.018 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | ||||||
| 1–2 | 144 | 1 | 66 | 0.458 | 1.805 | 1–2 | 154 | 1 | 63 | 0.409 | 2.155 |
| 2–3 | 78 | 0.541 | 26 | 0.333 | 1.910 | 2–3 | 91 | 0.590 | 23 | 0.252 | 2.302 |
| 3–4 | 52 | 0.361 | 21 | 0.403 | 1.615 | 3–4 | 68 | 0.441 | 22 | 0.323 | 1.911 |
| 4–5 | 31 | 0.215 | 16 | 0.516 | 1.370 | 4–5 | 46 | 0.298 | 23 | 0.5 | 1.586 |
| 5–6 | 15 | 0.104 | 7 | 0.466 | 1.3 | 5–6 | 23 | 0.149 | 9 | 0.391 | 1.673 |
| 6–7 | 8 | 0.055 | 5 | 0.625 | 1 | 6–7 | 14 | 0.090 | 6 | 0.428 | 1.428 |
| 7–8 | 3 | 0.020 | 2 | 0.666 | 0.833 | 7–8 | 8 | 0.051 | 5 | 0.625 | 1.125 |
| 8–9 | 1 | 0.006 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 8–9 | 3 | 0.019 | 2 | 0.666 | 1.166 |
| 9–10 | 1 | 0.006 | 0 | 0 | 1.5 | ||||||
Figure 2.Probability of survival and associated standard error at each age for the four morph–sex classes. (Online version in colour.)