Embed
Email

neil

Document Sample
neil
Shared by: HC111111082045
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
0
posted:
11/11/2011
language:
English
pages:
83
Life-history Characteristics

 Allorganisms have been selected to

maximize reproductive success over the

course of their lifetimes.



 There is, however, tremendous variation in

how organisms achieve this.

Life-history Characteristics

 Some organisms produce many offspring

once, but live only a short time.



 Othersproduce a few offspring over the

course of a long life.

Life-history Characteristics

 There is also enormous variation in the

size of offspring. Oysters produce 10-50

million tiny eggs whereas whales produce

a single large calf.



 What explains the variation we see?

Life-history Characteristics

 Clearly, there are constraints and trade-

offs in the strategies that organisms can

employ.

 The best strategies are determined by the

availability of energy and an organisms’

prospects of survival.

Sample life history

 Consider a female opossum’s life history.

 Born and nursed by mother for about 3

months.

 Becomes independent and grows to

maturity.

 Age 10 months has first litter of 8 pups.

Age 15months has second litter of 7 pups

 Killed by predator at 20 months.

Fig 12.2

Life-history Characteristics

 Female’s energy came from different

sources and was allocated in different

directions over course of her life.



 Forfirst 3 months received energy from

her mother. After that had to obtain her

own.

Life-history Characteristics

 Asa juvenile she devoted energy to

growth, metabolism and repair.



reaching maturity she devoted

 After

energy to metabolism, repair and

reproduction.

Life-history Characteristics

 Fundamentally, differences in how and when

energy is allocated affect life history strategies.



 A different opossum might have matured earlier

at a smaller size, and produced babies earlier,

but perhaps fewer or smaller ones.

 Alternatively, more energy might be allocated to

repair and less to reproduction perhaps resulting

in a longer life.

Differential energy allocation by

sand crickets

 Sand crickets occur in both long-wined and

short-winged forms (papers by Zhao and Zera

2002, 2003).

 Long-winged forms have well developed flight

muscles and fuel to power them. This enables

them to disperse if conditions are poor.

 Short-winged forms cannot disperse, but can

develop eggs more quickly.

 There is a trade-off between dispersal ability and

early reproduction.

Issues in life-history analysis

 Analyzing life history decisions involves

cost-benefit analysis and an examination

of fitness trade-offs as it relates to the

following questions:

 Why do organisms age and die?

 How many offspring should an individual

produce in a given year?

 How big should each offspring be?

Why do organisms age and die?

 Senesence is a late-life decline in an

individual’s fertility and probability of

reproducing.



 Same pattern found in many organisms.

Fig 12.4

 Ifsenesence reduces reproductive

success we would expect it to be opposed

by selection.

Hypotheses explaining

senesence

 Two major hypotheses on why aging

persists:

 Rate-of-living theory

 Evolutionary trade-off theory

Rate-of-living Hypothesis

 This hypothesis suggests that aging is caused

by accumulation of cellular damage caused by

accumulation of toxins and accumulation of

errors during replication, transcription and

translation of DNA.



 Hypothesis suggests organisms have reached

limit of biological repair and no more genetic

variation exists for improved repair mechanisms.

Rate-of-living Hypothesis

 Hypothesis makes two predictions.

 1. Cell and tissue damage caused by

metabolism so aging rate should be

correlated with metabolic rate.

 2. Species should not be able to evolve

longer life spans.

Rate-of-living Hypothesis

 Austad and Fisher (1991) tested prediction

1.

 Calculated amount of energy expended

per gram of tissue per lifetime for 164

mammal species. Theory predicts rate

should be similar across groups.

 Found range from 39 kcal/g/lifetime in

elephant shrews to 1,102 kcal/g/lifetime in

a bat.

Fig 12.5

Rate-of-living Hypothesis

 Alsofound bats have rates similar to those

of many other mammals but life spans that

are 3 times as long.



 These patterns don’t fit rate-of-living

predictions.

Rate-of-living Hypothesis

 Luckinbill et al. (1984) tested prediction 2

by artificially selecting for longevity in fruit

flies.



 Lineages in which they selected for late

reproduction showed greatly increased

longevity over the course of 13

generations of selection. Average lifespan

increased from 35 to 60 days.

Fig 12.6

Rate-of-living Hypothesis

 Results of tests thus do not support the

rate-of-living hypothesis.

Evolutionary Hypothesis for

aging

selection can produce longer life spans

 If

why does it not do so?



 Under evolutionary hypothesis for aging,

organisms age because the body fails to

repair cell and tissue damage rather than

because it cannot do so.

Evolutionary Hypothesis for

aging

 Failure to repair may be due to (i)

accumulation of deleterious mutations or

(ii) trade-offs between repair and

reproduction.

Evolution of senesence in a

hypothetical population.

 Population has annual probability of

survival each year of 0.8 (death by

accident, predation, etc.). Population

declines exponentially over time.

 Individuals with wild-type genotype mature

at age 3 and die at age 16 (if not killed).

Have one offspring a year.

 Population expected lifetime Reproductive

success of 2.419.

12.9a

Evolution of senesence in a

hypothetical population.

 New mutation occurs which causes death

at age 14. Rest of life history unchanged.

 Expected lifetime RS reduced to 2.34

offspring, a small reduction and 96% of the

lifetime RS of the wildtype.

 Few individuals live beyond 14 in wildtype

population so effect is small.

12.9b

Evolution of senesence in a

hypothetical population.

 In general, mutations that cause death late

in natural life will be only weakly selected

against.

 Mutation that causes death at a young

age, of course, will be strongly selected

against.

 Such mutations may be maintained in

population by mutation-selection balance.

Evolution of senesence in a

hypothetical population.

 An example of the kind of mutation that

could cause death only late in life might be

one that causes cells to not repair

themselves as well as is possible.

 For example, in humans, a DNA mismatch

repair mutation causes a form of colon

cancer. Median age of diagnosis is 48

(range 17 to 92) well after reproduction

has begun.

Evolution of senesence in a

hypothetical population.

 In our hypothetical population a second

mutation occurs that causes reproduction

to begin at age 2 and death at age 10.

 There is thus a trade-off between age of

first reproduction and longevity.

 Expected lifetime RS of individuals with

mutation is 2.66, which is 1.1 times the

wildtype’s RS.

Evolution of senesence in a

hypothetical population.

 Most individuals reap benefit of early

reproduction, bur few pay cost of earlier death.

 This mutant allele should spread rapidly.

 A gene that causes less energy to be devoted to

cellular damage repair and more to be devoted

to reproduction would fit profile of such a mutant.

Several have been identified in fruit flies and

nematodes.

Evidence of a trade-off caused by

early reproduction.



 In a study of Collared Flycatchers

individuals that bred at age 1 had smaller

clutches at ages 2-4 than individuals who

don’t first breed until age 2.

12.13

Evidence of a trade-off caused by

early reproduction.

 Also, females whose clutches were

artificially enlarged in year 1 had

progressively smaller clutches in years 2-

4.

Evidence of a trade-off caused by

early reproduction.

 Conclusion is that there is a trade-off

between early and late reproduction in

Collared Flycatchers.

 First year breeders do have higher life

time RS than second year breeders.

Evolution of ageing in Opossums

 We expect populations with low rates of

mortality due to factors such as predation

to evolve delayed senesence.

 Under these circumstances mutations that

cause senesence are more likely to make

themselves felt because animals live to be

older and so will be selected against.

Evolution of ageing in Opossums

 Austad (1993) studied two populations of

Opossums one on Georgia mainland, the

other on Sapelo Island off the coast.

 Opposums on mainland have high

mortality rates from predators (>50% of all

deaths).

 No mammalian predators on Sapelo

Island.

Evolution of ageing in Opossums

 Austad followed life histories of radio-

collared opossums on both sites.

 Island populations aged more slowly than

mainland populations on several

measures including rate of survival,

reproductive performance, and connective

tissue physiology.

Fig 12.14

How many offspring should an

individual produce in a year?

 In life history decisions a fundamental

choice is how many offspring to produce in

a year.

 The more offspring produced in a year, the

less each can be cared for and additional

offspring affect the parents prospects for

survival.

Clutch size in birds

 The question of how many young is

optimal has been extensively studied in

birds.

 David Lack 1947 suggested that selection

would favor the clutch size that produced

the most surviving offspring.

Clutch size in birds

 Ifprobability of average offspring surviving

falls with increasing clutch size then we

can calculate optimal clutch size by

multiplying clutch size by probability of

survival.

 An intermediate clutch size is thus optimal.

Fig 12.16

Clutch size in birds

 There have been numerous field studies

that have tested Lack’s hypothesis.



 Many studies (including ones in which

additional eggs are added to the brood)

have found that the most productive clutch

is often several eggs larger than that laid

by the birds.

Fig 12.17

Clutch size in birds

 How do we explain the observation that

many birds appear to lay clutches that are

smaller than the apparent optimum?



 Severalplausible hypotheses have been

put forward.

Clutch size in birds

 (i)Lack’s hypothesis assumes that effort in

one breeding season has no effect on

effort in future years.



 Many studies have shown that birds forced

to raise larger broods in one year, lay

smaller clutches the next year. Also, birds

that raise larger clutches have lower

survival to the next year.

Clutch size in birds

Increasing clutch size may reduce the

 (ii)

quality of the offspring.

 Schluter and Gustafsson (1993) added or

removed eggs from nests of Collared

Flycatchers.

 Monitored chicks subsequent life histories.

Clutch size in birds

 Found young from nests with enlarged

clutches laid smaller clutches than did

birds from nests with reduced clutches.



 There appears to be a trade-off between

number and quality of offspring so that

most productive clutch size is smaller than

that which produces the most surviving

offspring.

Fig 12.18

How big should each offspring be?

there must be a trade-off

 Logically

between number and size of offspring.



A cake can be cut into a few large pieces

or many few pieces, but not many large

pieces.

How big should each offspring be?

 Elgar (1990) documented a clear negative

correlation between clutch size and egg

size in 26 families of fish.

 Fish that produce larger eggs produce

fewer eggs per clutch.

 A similar correlation between egg size and

clutch size has also been documented for

3 orders of insects Berrigan (1991).

Fig 12.21

Selection on offspring size

 Smith and Fretwell (1974) analyzed the

problem of how parents could strike a

balance between size and number of

offspring.



analysis was based on two

 Their

assumptions (i) there is a trade-off

between size and number of offspring

Fig 12.22a

Selection on offspring size

 (ii)Larger offspring have a better chance

of surviving.

 There must be a minimum size below

which offspring have no chance of

surviving, but above this survival

probability increases sharply with size

before leveling off (as it cannot exceed a

probability of 1).

Fig 12.22b

Selection on offspring size

 Given the two assumptions it is easy to

determine an optimal balance for a pair of

curves.

 Parental fitness for an offspring size is

given by multiplying number of offspring by

survival probability.

 Plotting fitness against offspring size

allows optimum to be identified.

Fig. 12.22c

Selection on offspring size

 Optimaloffspring size will differ depending

on the shapes of the curves used in the

analysis.



 However, an intermediate offspring size

will be favored. If relationship between

survival and size was linear rather than

curvilinear extreme offspring size might be

favored instead.

Selection on offspring size

 Notethat parental and individual offspring

optima differ.



 Producing more, but smaller offspring

enhances parental fitness, but smaller

offspring have reduced survival

probabilities.

Selection on offspring size in

salmon

 Smith and Fretwell’s model has been tested

in salmon.



 Heath et al. (2003) studied Chinook salmon

at a commercial hatchery.



 Theyconfirmed Smith and Fretwell’s first

assumption that there is a trade-off between

egg size and number of eggs laid.

12.23 A

Selection on offspring size in

salmon

 They also examined the relationship

between egg size and survival of young

fish (fry).

Fig 12.23b

Selection on offspring size in

salmon

 Using the two curves, Heath et al.

calculated an optimal egg mass of 0.15g

for hatchery salmon.



 Optimalsize for egg size for hatchery

salmon is smaller than it is for wild salmon

because smaller fry survive better in the

hatchery than in the wild.

Fig 12.23c

Selection on offspring size in

salmon

 The hatchery population was founded from

wild stock in the late 1980’s and given the

reproductive advantage females with

smaller eggs have the population has

been evolving towards smaller egg sizes

since then.

12.23d

Conflicts of interest between life

histories

 Mammals nourish their offspring using a

placenta.



 Thissystem of nourishing the offspring

allows an opportunity for conflict between

paternal and maternal genes.

Conflicts of interest between life

histories

 The conflict stems from the fact that males

would prefer the female to invest heavily in

current offspring, whereas the female also

wishes to invest in future offspring (likely

fathered by other males).

Conflicts of interest between life

histories

 Selectionshould favor males that can

coerce the female to invest more heavily in

the current offspring and mechanisms to

do this have been found.



 Certaingenes are biochemically imprinted

during gamete production allowing male

and female alleles to be distinguished.

Conflicts of interest between life

histories

 Imprintingaffects transcription of genes

within the embryo.



 Forexample, in mice the paternal allele of

a hormone called Insulin-like Growth

Factor II (IGF II) is widely expressed, but

the maternal copy is hardly transcribed.

Conflicts of interest between life

histories

pattern of imprinting is puzzling

 This

because equal expression of alleles is the

norm.



 Female’s turning off their allele runs the

risk of the fetus not producing an essential

enzyme if the male’s version is non-

functional.

Conflicts of interest between life

histories

 Haig et al. have explained the observed pattern

of imprinting as the result of a tug-of-war

between male and female alleles within the

fetus.



 The paternally transcribed IGF-II is selected to

maximize rates of cell division (and hence

growth and monopolization of female

resources). The female allele is turned off to

preserve resources for future reproduction.

Conflicts of interest between life

histories

 Consistent with the expectation that males

will attempt to influence resource

distribution when they can, genomic

imprinting does not occur in birds and

frogs where all resources are distributed

before fertilization.


Related docs
Other docs by HC111111082045
DrJExcerpt
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
ecology_ms_biosphere 2
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
final_bibliography
Views: 19  |  Downloads: 0
Gr3PlantsReview
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
partnersIndex_2000 current
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
2007_06
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
MOP_Section_5
Views: 2  |  Downloads: 0
Estates
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
prefix 20suffix 20root
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!