2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17725.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does the relationship between offspring size and performance change across the life-history?

Abstract: What selection pressures drive the evolution of offspring size? Answering this fundamental question for any species requires an understanding of the relationship between offspring size and offspring fitness. A major goal of evolutionary ecologists has been to estimate this critical relationship, but for organisms with complex lifecycles, logistical constraints restrict most studies to early life‐history stages only. Here, we examine the relationship between offspring size and offspring performance in the field… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
48
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
(97 reference statements)
1
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3) demonstrates that the maternal nest environment will affect offspring phenotypes in absolute terms. Hence, if one is interested in how per-offspring investment affects offspring performance, then the present study shows that removing offspring from the context in which offspring were provisioned can result in inaccurate estimates of the offspring size-performance relationship (Hutchings 1991;Einum and Fleming 1999;Dias and Marshall 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…3) demonstrates that the maternal nest environment will affect offspring phenotypes in absolute terms. Hence, if one is interested in how per-offspring investment affects offspring performance, then the present study shows that removing offspring from the context in which offspring were provisioned can result in inaccurate estimates of the offspring size-performance relationship (Hutchings 1991;Einum and Fleming 1999;Dias and Marshall 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…One mechanism for this diminished effect is compensatory growth, whereby initial differences among offspring are reduced due to increases in the relative growth rate of smaller offspring (Wilson et al. 2007; Dias and Marshall 2010). Other sources of variation in early development include maternal and paternal effects that can cause cohort differences in various fitness components (Lindstrom 1999).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There may also be ontogenetic changes in the strength and direction of size selection (Sogard 1997). Thus, using estimates of the relationship between offspring size and offspring performance based on early life history stages alone could result in error in both strength and direction of the relationship (Dias and Marshall 2010). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This mechanism can explain every pattern that we observed in the present study, and this explanation is perhaps more parsimonious than the oxygen-stress hypothesis described above. It seems less likely that adaptive interpopulation eggsize variation would be maintained by size asymmetries in larval strength, as this explanation suggests that small juveniles expend more energy emerging from small gravels, which may have subsequent effects on growth and survival (e.g., Dias and Marshall 2010). Clearly, more research is needed to understand both the mechanism responsible for the pattern of emergence observed in the present study and to understand the egg size -gravel size correlation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%