While it is commonly believed that animals live longer in zoos than in the wild, this assumption has rarely been tested. We compared four survival metrics (longevity, baseline mortality, onset of senescence and rate of senescence) between both sexes of free-ranging and zoo populations of more than 50 mammal species. We found that mammals from zoo populations generally lived longer than their wild counterparts (84% of species). The effect was most notable in species with a faster pace of life (i.e. a short life span, high reproductive rate and high mortality in the wild) because zoos evidently offer protection against a number of relevant conditions like predation, intraspecific competition and diseases. Species with a slower pace of life (i.e. a long life span, low reproduction rate and low mortality in the wild) benefit less from captivity in terms of longevity; in such species, there is probably less potential for a reduction in mortality. These findings provide a first general explanation about the different magnitude of zoo environment benefits among mammalian species, and thereby highlight the effort that is needed to improve captive conditions for slow-living species that are particularly susceptible to extinction in the wild.

Many ruminant species show seasonal patterns of reproduction. Causes for this are widely debated, and include adaptations to seasonal availability of resources (with cues either from body condition in more tropical, or from photoperiodism in higher latitude habitats) and/or defence strategies against predators. Conclusions so far are limited to datasets with less than 30 species. Here, we use a dataset on 110 wild ruminant species kept in captivity in temperate-zone zoos to describe their reproductive patterns quantitatively [determining the birth peak breadth (BPB) as the number of days in which 80% of all births occur]; then we link this pattern to various biological characteristics [latitude of origin, mother-young-relationship (hider/follower), proportion of grass in the natural diet (grazer/browser), sexual size dimorphism/mating system], and compare it with reports for free-ranging animals. When comparing taxonomic subgroups, variance in BPB is highly correlated to the minimum, but not the maximum BPB, suggesting that a high BPB (i.e. an aseasonal reproductive pattern) is the plesiomorphic character in ruminants. Globally, latitude of natural origin is highly correlated to the BPB observed in captivity, supporting an overruling impact of photoperiodism on ruminant reproduction. Feeding type has no additional influence; the hider/follower dichotomy, associated with the anti-predator strategy of 'swamping', has additional influence in the subset of African species only. Sexual size dimorphism and mating system are marginally associated with the BPB, potentially indicating a facilitation of polygamy under seasonal conditions. The difference in the calculated Julian date of conception between captive populations and that reported for free-ranging ones corresponds to the one expected if absolute day length was the main trigger in highly seasonal species: calculated day length at the time of conception between free-ranging and captive populations followed a y = x relationship. Only 11 species (all originating from lower latitudes) were considered to change their reproductive pattern distinctively between the wild and captivity, with 10 becoming less seasonal (but not aseasonal) in human care, indicating that seasonality observed in the wild was partly resource-associated. Only one species (Antidorcas marsupialis) became more seasonal in captivity, presumably because resource availability in the wild overrules the innate photoperiodic response. Reproductive seasonality explains additional variance in the body mass-gestation period relationship, with more seasonal species having shorter gestation periods for their body size. We conclude that photoperiodism, and in particular absolute day length, are genetically fixed triggers for reproduction that may be malleable to some extent by body condition, and that plasticity in gestation length is an important facilitator that may partly explain the success of ruminant radiation to high latitudes. Evidence for an anti-predator strategy involving seasonal reproduction is li...

Summary 1. While-classical life-history theory does not predict post-reproductive lifespan (PRLS), it has been detected in a great number of taxa, leading to the view that it is a broadly conserved trait, and attempts to reconcile theory with these observations. We suggest an alternative: the apparently wide distribution of significant PRLS is an artifact of insufficient methods. 2. PRLS is traditionally measured in units of time between each individual’s last parturition and death, after excluding those individuals for whom this interval is short. A mean of this measure is then calculated as a population value. We show this traditional population measure (which we denote PrT) to be inconsistently calculated, inherently biased, strongly correlated with overall longevity, uninformative on the importance of PRLS in a population’s life-history, unable to use the most-commonly available form of relevant data and without a realistic null hypothesis. Using data altered to ensure that the null hypothesis is true, we find a false positive rate of 0.47 for PrT. 3. We propose an alternative population measure, using life-table methods. Post-reproductive Representation (PrR) is the proportion of adult years lived which are post-reproductive. We briefly derive PrR and discuss its properties. We employ a demographic simulation, based on the null hypothesis of simultaneous and proportional decline in survivorship and fecundity, to produce a null distribution for PrR based on the age-specific rates of a population. 4. In an example analysis, using data on 84 populations of human and non-human primates, we demonstrate the ability of PrR to represent the effects of artificial protection from mortality and of humanness on PRLS. PrR is found to be higher for all human populations under a wide range of conditions than for any non-human primate in our sample. A strong effect of artificial protection is found, but humans under the most-adverse conditions still achieve PrR of >0.3. 5. PrT should not be used as a population measure, and should be used as an individual measure only with great caution. The use of PrR as an intuitive, statistically valid and intercomparable population life-history measure is encouraged.

In most mammals, both sexes display different survival patterns, often involving faster senescence in males. Being under intense sexual competition to secure mating opportunities, males of polygynous species allocate resources to costly behaviors and conspicuous sexual traits, which might explain these observed differences in longevity and senescence patterns. However, comparative studies performed to date have led to conflicting results. We aimed to resolve this problem by first reviewing case studies of the relationship between the strength of sexual selection and age-specific survival metrics. Then, we performed a comprehensive comparative analysis to test whether such relationships exist among species of captive ruminants. We found that the strength of sexual selection negatively influenced the onset of actuarial senescence in males, with males senescing earlier in polygynous than in monogamous species, which led to reduced male longevity in polygynous species. Moreover, males of territorial species senesced earlier but slower, and have a shorter longevity than males of species displaying other mating tactics. We detected little influence of the strength of sexual selection on the rate of actuarial senescence. Our findings demonstrate that the onset of actuarial senescence, rather than its rate, is a side effect of physiological mechanisms linked to sexual selection, and potentially accounts for observed differences in longevity.

There persist two widely held but mutually inconsistent views on the evolution of post-fertile lifespan of human females. The first, prevalent within anthropology, sees post-fertile lifespan (PFLS) in the light of adaptive processes, focusing on the social and economic habits of humans that selected for a lengthy PFLS. This view rests on the assumption that human PFLS is distinct from that of other species, and focuses on quantifying the selective causes and consequences of that difference. The second view, prevalent within gerontology and comparative biology, emphasizes that PFLS is a phylogenetically widespread trait or that human PFLS is predictable based on life-history allometries. In this view, human PFLS is part of a broad cross-species pattern and its genesis cannot, therefore, rely on human-specific traits. Those who advocate the second view have questioned the "special pleading" for human specific explanations of PFLS, and have argued that human PFLS is quantitatively greater but not qualitatively different than PFLS in many other animals. Papers asking whether human PFLS is explained by the importance of mothers more than grandmothers, whether paternal or maternal grandparents have more of an effect on child survival, or who is providing the excess calories are associated with the first view that assumes the need to explain the existence of human PFLS on the basis of a uniquely human socioecology. Anthropologists largely see human PFLS as derived, while comparative gerontologists point to evidence that it is one instance of a ubiquitous cross-species pattern. The two groups generally occupy non-overlapping research circles, in terms of conferences and journals, and therefore interact little enough to largely avoid the need to reconcile their views, allowing the persistence of misconceptions in each field. Our goal is to identify and address the most important of these misconceptions and thereby make clear that both of these seemingly incongruent views contain valid points. We argue that two distinct but related traits have been lumped together under the same concept of "post-reproductive lifespan," one (post-fertile viability) that is tremendously widespread and another (a post-fertile life stage) that is derived to hominins, and that the differences and connections between these two traits are necessary for understanding human life-history evolution.