How should parents adjust the size of their young in response to local environmental cues?

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 26, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1488-1498

  Kuijper, B ^a,b   Johnstone, R A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Inclusive fitness; Life history evolution; Maternal effects; Nongenetic effects; Offspring size; Theory

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; ENVIRONMENTAL CUE; FITNESS; MATERNAL EFFECT; NUMERICAL MODEL; PARENT-OFFSPRING INTERACTION; PARENTAL INVESTMENT; PHILOPATRY; POPULATION STRUCTURE; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RISK FACTOR; SPATIAL VARIATION;

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; INCLUSIVE FITNESS; LIFE HISTORY EVOLUTION; MALE; MATERNAL EFFECTS; NONGENETIC EFFECTS; OFFSPRING SIZE; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REPRODUCTION; THEORETICAL MODEL; THEORY;

INCLUSIVE FITNESS; LIFE HISTORY EVOLUTION; MATERNAL EFFECTS; NONGENETIC EFFECTS; OFFSPRING SIZE; THEORY;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REPRODUCTION;

EID: 84880700581     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12156     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Allen, R.M., Buckley, Y.M. & Marshall, D.J. 2008. Offspring size plasticity in response to intraspecific competition: an adaptive maternal effect across life-history stages. Am. Nat. 171: 225-237.
2. Bashey, F. 2006. Cross-generational environmental effects and the evolution of offspring size in the Trinidadian guppy Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 60: 348-361.
3. Ben-Ami, F., Ebert, D. & Regoes, R.R. 2010. Pathogen dose infectivity curves as a method to analyze the distribution of host susceptibility: a quantitative assessment of maternal effects after food stress and pathogen exposure. Am. Nat. 175: 106-115.
4. Berg, O.K., Hendry, A.P., Svendsen, B., Bech, C., Arnekleiv, J.V. & Lohrmann, A. et al., 2001. Maternal provisioning of offspring and the use of those resources during ontogeny: variation within and between Atlantic salmon families. Func. Ecol. 15: 13-23.
5. Bernardo, J. 1996a. Maternal effects in animal ecology. Am. Zool. 36: 83-105.
6. Bernardo, J. 1996b. The particular maternal effect of propagule size, especially egg size: patterns, models, quality of evidence and interpretations. Am. Zool. 36: 216-236.
7. Carrière, Y. & Roff, D.A. 1995. The evolution of offspring size and number: a test of the Smith-Fretwell model in three species of crickets. Oecologia 102: 389-396.
8. Dingemanse, N.J., Kazem, A.J., Réale, D. & Wright, J. 2010. Behavioural reaction norms: animal personality meets individual plasticity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25: 81-89.
9. Einum, S. & Fleming, I.A. 2002. Does within-population variation in fish egg size reflect maternal influences on optimal values? Am. Nat. 160: 756-765.
10. Falconer, D. 1965. Maternal effects and selection response. In: Genetics Today, Proceeding of the XI International Congress on Genetics (S.J. Geerts, ed.), pp. 763-774. Pergamon, Oxford.
11. Fischer, B., Taborsky, B. & Kokko, H. 2011. How to balance the offspring quality-quantity tradeoff when environmental cues are unreliable. Oikos 120: 258-270.
12. Fox, C.W. & Czesak, M.E. 2000. Evolutionary ecology of progeny size in arthropods. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 45: 341-369.
13. Gardner, A. & West, S.A., 2006. Demography, altruism, and the benefits of budding. J. Evol. Biol. 19: 1707-1716.
14. Giesing, E.R., Suski, C.D., Warner, R.E. & Bell, A.M. 2011. Female sticklebacks transfer information via eggs: effects of maternal experience with predators on offspring. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 278: 1753-1759.
15. Gilbert, L., Williamson, K.A. & Graves, J.A. 2012. Male attractiveness regulates daughter fecundity non-genetically via maternal investment. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 279: 523-528.
16. Gotthard, K., Berger, D. & Walters, R. 2007. What keeps insects small? Time limitation during oviposition reduces the fecundity benefit of female size in a butterfly. Am. Nat. 169: 768-779.
17. Hendry, A.P., Day, T. & Cooper, A.B. 2001. Optimal size and number of propagules: allowance for discrete stages and effects of maternal size on reproductive output and offspring fitness. Am. Nat. 157: 387-407.
18. Jansen, P.A., Bongers, F. & Hemerik, L. 2004. Seed mass and mast seeding enhance dispersal by a neotropical scatter-hoarding rodent. Ecol. Monogr. 74: 569-589.
19. Johnstone, R.A. & Cant, M.A. 2008. Sex differences in dispersal and the evolution of helping and harming. Am. Nat. 172: 318-330.
20. Krist, M. 2011. Egg size and offspring quality: a meta-analysis in birds. Biol. Rev. 86: 692-716.
21. Kuijper, B. & Johnstone, R.A. 2012. How dispersal influences parent-offspring conflict over investment. Behav. Ecol. 23: 898-906.
22. Leips, J., Richardson, J.M.L., Rodd, F.H. & Travis, J. 2009. Adaptive maternal adjustments of offspring size in response to conspecific density in two populations of the Least Killifish, Heterandria formosa. Evolution 63: 1341-1347.
23. Lion, S. & Gandon, S. 2009. Habitat saturation and the spatial evolutionary ecology of altruism. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 1487-1502.
24. Lion, S. & Van Baalen, M. 2007. From infanticide to parental care: why spatial structure can help adults be good parents. Am. Nat. 170: E26-E46.
25. Lion, S., Jansen, V.A. & Day, T. 2011. Evolution in structured populations: beyond the kin versus group debate. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26: 193-201.
26. Lloyd, D.G. 1987. Selection of offspring size at independence and other size-versus-number strategies. Am. Nat. 129: 800-817.
27. Mangel, M., Rosenheim, J.A. & Adler, F.R. 1994. Clutch size, offspring performance, and intergenerational fitness. Behav. Ecol. 5: 412-417.
28. Marshall, D.J. & Keough, M.J. 2007. The evolutionary ecology of offspring size in marine invertebrates. In: Advances in Marine Biology (D.W. Sims, ed.), vol. 53. pp. 1-60. Academic Press, New York.
29. Marshall, D.J., Heppell, S.S., Munch, S.B. & Warner, R.R. 2010. The relationship between maternal phenotype and offspring quality: do older mothers really produce the best offspring? Ecology 91: 2862-2873.
30. McGinley, M.A., Temme, D.H. & Geber, M.A. 1987. Parental investment in offspring in variable environments: theoretical and empirical considerations. Am. Nat. 130: 370-398.
31. Meffe, G.K. 1987. Embryo size variation in mosquitofish: optimality vs plasticity in propagule size. Copeia 1987: 762-768.
32. Mitchell, S.E. & Read, A.F. 2005. Poor maternal environment enhances offspring disease resistance in an invertebrate. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 272: 2601-2607.
33. Morris, D.W. 1998. State-dependent optimization of litter size. Oikos 83: 518-528.
34. Muller-Landau, H.C., Wright, S.J., Calderòn, O., Condit, R. & Hubbell, S.P. 2008. Interspecific variation in primary seed dispersal in a tropical forest. J. Ecol. 96: 653-667.
35. Naguib, M. & Gil, D. 2005. Transgenerational body size effects caused by early developmental stress in zebra finches. Biol. Lett. 1: 95-97.
36. Nasution, S., Roberts, D., Farnsworth, K., Parker, G.A. & Elwood, R.W. 2010. Maternal effects on offspring size and packaging constraints in the whelk. J. Zool. 281: 112-117.
37. Nussey, D.H., Wilson, A.J. & Brommer, J.E., 2007. The evolutionary ecology of individual phenotypic plasticity in wild populations. J. Evol. Biol. 20: 831-844.
38. Parker, G.A. & Begon, M. 1986. Optimal egg size and clutch size: effects of environment and maternal phenotype. Am. Nat. 128: 573-592.
39. Parker, G.A. & Macnair, M.R. 1978. Models of parent-offspring conflict. I. Monogamy. Anim. Behav. 26: 97-110.
40. Quinn, T.P., Hendry, A.P. & Wetzel, L.A. 1995. The influence of life history trade-offs and the size of incubation gravels on egg size variation in sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Oikos 74: 425-438.
41. Räsänen, K., Söderman, F., Laurila, A. & Merilä, J. 2008. Geographic variation in maternal investment: acidity affects egg size and fecundity in Rana arvalis. Ecology 89: 2553-2562.
42. Rodrigues, A.M.M. & Gardner, A. 2012. Evolution of helping and harming in heterogeneous populations. Evolution 66: 2065-2079.
43. Roff, D. 2002. Life History Evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland.
44. Ronce, O. 2007. How does it feel to be like a rolling stone? Ten questions about dispersal evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38: 231-253.
45. Rousset, F. 2004. Genetic Structure in Subdivided Populations. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
46. Segers, F.H. & Taborsky, B. 2011. Egg size and food abundance interactively affect juvenile growth and behaviour. Func. Ecol. 25: 166-176.
47. Segers, F.H.I.D. & Taborsky, B. 2012. Juvenile exposure to predator cues induces a larger egg size in fish. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 279: 1241-1248.
48. Shine, R. & Downes, S.J. 1999. Can pregnant lizards adjust their offspring phenotypes to environmental conditions? Oecologia 119, 1-8.
49. Smith, C.C. & Fretwell, S.D. 1974. The optimal balance between size and number of offspring. Am. Nat. 108: 499-506.
50. Sogard, S.M. 1997. Size-selective mortality in the juvenile stage of teleost fishes: a review. Bull. Mar. Sci. 60: 1129-1157.
51. Stjernman, M. & Little, T.J. 2011. Genetic variation for maternal effects on parasite susceptibility. J. Evol. Biol. 24: 2357-2363.
52. Taborsky, B., Skubic, E. & Bruintjes, R. 2007. Mothers adjust egg size to helper number in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Behav. Ecol. 18: 652-657.
53. Taylor, P.D. 1992. Altruism in viscous populations: an inclusive fitness model. Evol. Ecol. 6: 352-356.
54. Taylor, P.D. & Frank, S.A. 1996. How to make a kin selection model. J. Theor. Biol. 180: 27-37.
55. Tollrian, R. 1995. Predator-induced morphological defenses: costs, life history shifts, and maternal effects in Daphnia pulex. Ecology 76: 1691-1705.
56. Van Cleve, J., Feldman, M.W. & Lehmann, L. 2010. How demography, life history, and kinship shape the evolution of genomic imprinting. Am. Nat. 176: 440-455.
57. Westoby, M., Leishman, M., Lord, J., Poorter, H. & Schoen, D.J. 1996. Comparative ecology of seed size and dispersal [and discussion]. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 351: 1309-1318.