The Conundrum of Heterogeneities in Life History Studies

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 31, Issue 11, 2016, Pages 872-886

  Cam, Emmanuelle ^a   Aubry, Lise M ^b   Authier, Matthieu ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PAUL SABATIER   (France)

^b UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE LA ROCHELLE   (France)

Author keywords

latent traits; life history evolution; neutral model; state dependence; stochasticity; unobserved heterogeneity

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGICAL MODELING; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FITNESS; HERITABILITY; HETEROGENEITY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; STOCHASTICITY;

ANIMAL; DEMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; LIFE CYCLE STAGE; MARKOV CHAIN; PHENOTYPE;

ANIMALS; DEMOGRAPHY; HUMANS; LIFE CYCLE STAGES; PHENOTYPE; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES;

EID: 84992401715     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.08.002     Document Type: Review

References (100)

1. 1 Clutton-Brock, T.H., Reproductive Success: Studies of Individual Variation in Contrasting Breeding Systems. 1988, University of Chicago Press.
2. 2 Newton, I., Lifetime Reproductive Success in Birds. 1989, Academic Press.
3. 3 Curio, E., Why de young birds reproduce less well?. Ibis 125 (1983), 400–404.
4. 4 Wilson, A.J., Nussey, D.H., What is individual quality? An evolutionary perspective. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25 (2010), 207–214.
5. 5 Bergeron, P., et al. Individual quality: tautology or biological reality?. J. Anim. Ecol. 80 (2011), 361–364.
6. 6 Van Noordwijk, A.J., de Jong, G., Acquisition and allocation of resources: their influence on variation in life history tactics. Am. Nat., 1986, 137–142.
7. 7 Johnson, D.H., et al. The role of heterogeneity in animal population dynamics. Proc. Int. Biometrics Conf. 13 (1984), 1–15.
8. 8 Conner, M.M., White, G.C., Effects of individual heterogeneity in estimating the persistence of small populations. Nat. Resour. Model. 12 (1999), 109–127.
9. 9 Stover, J., et al. Demographic heterogeneity impacts density-dependent population dynamics. Theor. Ecol. 5 (2012), 297–309.
10. 10 Zarulli, V., Unobserved heterogeneity of frailty in the analysis of socioeconomic differences in health and mortality. Eur. J. Population 32 (2016), 55–72.
11. 11 Zens, M.S., Peart, D.R., Dealing with death data: individual hazards, mortality and bias. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18 (2003), 366–373.
12. 12 Service, P.M., Heterogeneity in individual mortality risk and its importance for evolutionary studies of senescence. Am. Nat. 156 (2000), 1–13.
13. 13 Vaupel, J.W., et al. The impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality. Demography 16 (1979), 439–454.
14. 14 Vaupel, J.W., Yashin, A.I., Heterogeneity's ruses: some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics. Am. Stat. 39 (1985), 176–185.
15. 15 van de Pol, M., Verhulst, S., Age-dependent traits: a new statistical model to separate within- and between-individual effects. Am. Nat. 167 (2006), 766–773.
16. 16 Bouwhuis, S., et al. Great tits growing old: selective disappearance and the partitioning of senescence to stages within the breeding cycle. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276 (2009), 2769–2777.
17. 17 Zhang, H., et al. Contrasting between- and within-individual trait effects on mortality risk in a long-lived seabird. Ecology 96 (2014), 71–79.
18. 18 Nothdurft, A., Spatio-temporal prediction of tree mortality based on long-term sample plots, climate change scenarios and parametric frailty modeling. Forest Ecol. Manag. 291 (2013), 43–54.
19. 19 Bonnet, T., Postma, E., Successful by chance? The power of mixed models and neutral simulations for the detection of individual fixed heterogeneity in fitness components. Am. Nat. 187 (2016), 60–74.
20. 20 Jenouvrier, et al. Extreme climate events and individual heterogeneity shape life-history traits and population dynamics. Ecol. Monogr. 85 (2015), 605–624.
21. 21 Plard, F., et al. Modeling reproductive trajectories of roe deer females: fixed or dynamic heterogeneity?. Theor. Pop. Biol. 82 (2012), 317–328.
22. 22 Royle, J.A., Modeling individual effects in the Cormack–Jolly–Seber model: a state–space formulation. Biometrics 64 (2008), 364–370.
23. 23 Marzolin, G., et al. Frailty in state-space models: application to actuarial senescence in the Dipper. Ecology 92 (2011), 562–567.
24. 24 Cam, E., et al. Individual covariation between life-history traits: seeing the trees despite the forest. Am. Nat. 159 (2002), 96–105.
25. 25 Hawkes, K., How grandmother effects plus individual variation in frailty shape fertility and mortality: guidance from human–chimpanzee comparisons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (2010), 8977–8984.
26. 26 Knape, J., et al. Individual heterogeneity and senescence in Silvereyes on Heron Island. Ecology 92 (2011), 813–820.
27. 27 Aubry, L.M., et al. The role of unobserved and observed heterogeneity in shaping survival in a long-lived seabird. J. Anim. Ecol. 80 (2011), 375–383.
28. 28 Fox, G.A., et al. Consequences of heterogeneity in survival in a population of Florida scrub-jays. J. Anim. Ecol. 75 (2006), 921–927.
29. 29 Hayward, A.D., et al. Reproductive senescence in female Soay sheep: variation across traits and contributions of individual ageing and selective disappearance. Func. Ecol. 27 (2013), 184–195.
30. 30 Chambert, T., et al. Individual heterogeneity in reproductive rates and cost of reproduction in a long-lived vertebrate. Ecol. Evol. 3 (2013), 2047–2060.
31. 31 Chambert, T., et al. An evolutionary perspective on reproductive individual heterogeneity in a marine vertebrate. J. Anim. Ecol. 83 (2014), 1158–1168.
32. 32 Chambert, T., et al. Use of posterior predictive checks as an inferential tool for investigating individual heterogeneity in animal population vital rates. Ecol. Evol. 4 (2014), 1389–1397.
33. 33 Tuljapurkar, S., et al. Dynamic heterogeneity in life histories. Ecol. Lett. 12 (2009), 93–106.
34. 34 Steiner, U.K., et al. Dynamic heterogeneity and life history variability in the kittiwake. J. Anim. Ecol. 79 (2010), 436–444.
35. 35 Steiner, U.K., Tuljapurkar, S., Neutral theory for life histories and individual variability in fitness components. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 (2012), 4684–4689.
36. 36 Godfrey-Smith, P., Three kinds of adaptationism. Orzack, S.H., Sober, E., (eds.) Adaptationism and Optimality, 2001, Cambridge University Press, 335–357.
37. 37 Pigliucci, M., Kaplan, J., The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15 (2000), 66–70.
38. 38 Merilä, J., Sheldon, B.C., Lifetime reproductive success and heritability in nature. Am. Nat. 155 (2000), 301–331.
39. 39 van de Pol, M., Wright, J., A simple method for distinguishing within- versus between-subject effects using mixed models. Anim. Behav. 77 (2009), 753–758.
40. 40 Lindberg, M.S., et al. Individual heterogeneity in black brant survival and recruitment with implications for harvest dynamics. Ecol. Evol. 3 (2013), 4045–4056.
41. 41 Dorazio, R.M., Royle, A.J., Mixture models for estimating the size of a closed population when capture rates vary among individuals. Biometrics 59 (2003), 351–364.
42. 42 Charmantier, A., et al. Quantitative genetics in the wild. 2014, Oxford University Press.
43. 43 Wilson, A.J., Poissan, J., Quantitative genetics in natural populations. Kliman, R.M., (eds.) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, 2016, Academic Press, 361–371.
44. 44 Heckman, J.J., Micro data, heterogeneity, and the evaluation of public policy: Nobel lecture. J. Polit. Econ. 109 (2001), 673–748.
45. 45 Arulampalam, W., Bhalotra, S., The linked survival prospects of siblings: evidence for the Indian states. Popul. Stud. 62 (2008), 171–190.
46. 46 Heckman, J.J., Borjas, G.J., Does unemployment cause future unemployment? Definitions, questions and answers from a continuous time model of heterogeneity and state dependence. Economica 47 (1980), 247–283.
47. 47 Heckman, J.J., Heterogeneity and state dependence. Rosen, S., (eds.) Studies in Labor Markets, 1981, University of Chicago Press, 91–140.
48. 48 Heckman, J.J., Simple statistical models for discrete panel data developed and applied to test the hypothesis of true state dependence against the hypothesis of spurious state dependence. Ann. INSEE, 1978, 227–269.
49. 49 Keane, M.P., Sauer, R.M., Classification error in dynamic discrete choice models: implications for female labor supply behavior. Econometrica 77 (2009), 975–991.
50. 50 Cam, E., et al. Looking for a needle in a haystack: inference about individual fitness components in a heterogeneous population. Oikos 122 (2013), 739–753.
51. 51 Nichols, J.D., Kendall, W.L., The use of multi-state capture–recapture models to address questions in evolutionary ecology. J. Appl. Stat. 22 (1995), 835–846.
52. 52 Lebreton, J.-D., et al. Modeling individual animal histories with multistate capture–recapture models. Caswell, H., (eds.) Advances in Ecological Research, 41, 2009, Academic Press, 87–173.
53. 53 Link, W.A., et al. Model-based estimation of individual fitness. J. App. Stat. 29 (2002), 207–224.
54. 54 Senner, N.R., et al. An ontogenetic perspective on individual differences. Proc. R. Soc. B., 282, 2015, 20151050.
55. 55 Yashin, A.I., et al. Model of hidden heterogeneity in longitudinal data. Theor. Popul. Biol. 73 (2008), 1–10.
56. 56 Wienke, A., Frailty Models in Survival Analysis. 2010, CRC Press.
57. 57 Iachine, I.A., et al. How heritable is individual susceptibility to death?. The results of an analysis of survival data on Danish, Swedish and Finnish twins. Twin Res. 1 (1998), 196–205.
58. 58 Kruuk, L.E.B., et al. New answers for old questions: the evolutionary quantitative genetics of wild animal populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39 (2008), 525–548.
59. 59 Vindenes, Y., Langangen, Ø., Individual heterogeneity in life histories and eco-evolutionary dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 18 (2015), 417–432.
60. 60 Fox, G.A., Kendall, B.E., Demographic stochasticity and the variance reduction effect. Ecology 83 (2002), 1928–1934.
61. 61 Kendall, B.E., et al. Demographic heterogeneity, cohort selection, and population growth. Ecology 92 (2011), 1985–1993.
62. 62 Keane, M.P., Modeling heterogeneity and state dependence in consumer choice Behavior. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 15 (1997), 310–326.
63. 63 Halliday, T.J., Heterogeneity, state dependence and health. Econom. J. 11 (2008), 499–516.
64. 64 Knights, S., et al. Dynamic relationships in the Australian labor market: heterogeneity and state-dependence. Econ. Rec. 78 (2002), 284–298.
65. 65 Bijwaard, G.E., Multistate event history analysis with frailty. Demographic Res., 30, 2014, 1591.
66. 66 Hyslop, D.R., State dependence, serial correlation and heterogeneity in intertemporal labor force participation of married women. Econometrica 67 (1999), 1255–1294.
67. 67 Cam, E., et al. Are adult nonbreeders prudent parents?. The kittiwake model. Ecology 79 (1998), 2917–2930.
68. 68 Orzack, S.H., et al. Static and dynamic expression of life history traits in the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis. Oikos 120 (2011), 369–380.
69. 69 Hoffman, A., Nitecki, M.H., Introduction: neutral models as a biological research strategy. Nitecki, M.H., Hoffman, A., (eds.) Neutral Models in Biology, 1987, Oxford University Press, 3–8.
70. 70 Caswell, H., Stage, age and individual stochasticity in demography. Oikos 118 (2009), 1763–1782.
71. 71 Caswell, H., A matrix approach to the statistics of longevity in heterogeneous frailty models. Demographic Res. 31 (2014), 553–592.
72. 72 Aalen, O., et al. Survival and Event History Analysis: A Process Point of View. 2008, Springer Science & Business Media.
73. 73 Heckman, J.J., Willis, R.J., A β-logistic model for the analysis of sequential labor force participation by married women. J. Pol. Econ. 85 (1977), 27–58.
74. 74 Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information–Theoretic Approach. 2nd edn, 2002, Springer Science & Business Media.
75. 75 Pigliucci, M., Kaplan, J., Making sense of evolution: The Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Biology. 2010, University of Chicago Press.
76. 76 Ahmad, N., State dependence in unemployment. Int. J. Econ. Fin. Issues 4 (2014), 93–106.
77. 77 Baron, J.P., et al. Cohort variation in offspring growth and survival: prenatal and postnatal factors in a late-maturing viviparous snake. J. Anim. Ecol. 79 (2010), 640–649.
78. 78 Pennell, M.L., Dunson, D.B., Bayesian semiparametric dynamic frailty models for multiple event time data. Biometrics 62 (2006), 1044–1052.
79. 79 Munda, M., et al. Testing for decreasing heterogeneity in a new time-varying frailty model. TEST, 2014, 1–16.
80. 80 Pradel, R., Multievent: an extension of multistate capture–recapture models to uncertain states. Biometrics 61 (2005), 442–447.
81. 81 Choquet, R., et al. A semi-Markov model to assess reliably survival patterns from birth to death in free-ranging populations. Met. Ecol. Evol. 2 (2011), 383–389.
82. 82 Bartolucci, F., et al. Latent Markov Models for Longitudinal Data. 2012, CRC Press.
83. 83 Ma, Z.S., et al. Caring about trees in the forest: incorporating frailty in risk analysis for personalized medicine. Pers. Med. 8 (2011), 681–688.
84. 84 Burnham, K.P., White, G.C., Evaluation of some random effects methodology applicable to bird ringing data. J. App. Stat. 29 (2002), 245–264.
85. 85 Flaig, G., et al. Testing for state dependence effects in a dynamic model of male unemployment behavior. ZEW Discussion Pap, 1993, 93–97.
86. 86 Skrondal, A., Rabe-Hesketh, S., Handling initial conditions and endogeneous covariates in dynamic/transition models for binary data with unobserved heterogeneity. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. C. 63 (2014), 211–237.
87. 87 Garibotti, G., et al. Longevity and correlated frailty in multigenerational families. J. Ger. A. Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 6 (2006), 1253–1261.
88. 88 Papaïx, J., et al. Combining capture–recapture data and pedigree information to assess heritability of demographic parameters in the wild. J. Evol. Biol. 23 (2010), 2176–2184.
89. 89 Aubry, L.M., et al. Consequences of recruitment decisions and heterogeneity on age-specific breeding success in a long-lived seabird. Ecology 90 (2009), 2491–2502.
90. 90 Pardo, D., et al. What shall I do now? State-dependent variations of life-history traits with aging in wandering albatrosses. Ecol. Evol. 4 (2014), 474–487.
91. 91 Grilli, L., Rampichini, C., Specification of random effects in multilevel models: a review. Qual. Quant. 49 (2015), 967–976.
92. 92 Erosheva, E., et al. Breaking bad: two decades of life-course data analysis in criminology, developmental psychology, and beyond. Ann. Rev. Stat. App. 1 (2014), 301–332.
93. 93 Bauer, D.J., Cai, L., Consequences of unmodeled nonlinear effects in multilevel models. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 34 (2009), 97–114.
94. 94 Koons, D.N., et al. Methods for studying cause-specific senescence in the wild. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5 (2014), 924–933.
95. 95 Péron, et al. Capture–recapture models with heterogeneity to study survival senescence in the wild. Oikos 119 (2010), 524–532.
96. 96 Ohlssen, et al. Flexible random-effects models using Bayesian semi-parametric models: applications to institutional comparisons. Stat. Med. 26 (2007), 2088–2112.
97. 97 Prowse, V., Modeling employment dynamics with state dependence and unobserved heterogeneity. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 30 (2012), 411–431.
98. 98 Bonner, S.J., Schwarz, C.J., An extension of the Cormack–Jolly–Seber model for continuous covariates with application to Microtus pennsylvanicus. Biometrics 62 (2006), 142–149.
99. 99 Cam, E., et al. Dispersal and individual quality in a long lived species. Oikos 106 (2004), 386–398.
100. 100 Chih-Wei, L., Ming-Jen, C., A credit risk model with dynamic frailties for default intensity estimation. Asia Pac. Manage. 13 (2008), 557–566.