Can number and size of offspring increase simultaneously? - a central life-history trade-off reconsidered

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Tanja Poikonen²  Tuula A Oksanen²  Tapio Mappes²  Esa Koskela³  Minna Koivula¹  Eero Schroderus² 

[1] MTT, Biotechnology and Food Research, Biometrical Genetics, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland;Centre of Excellence in Evolutionary Research, Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland;Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland

关键词: Heritability;    Genetic correlation;    Birth size;    Litter size;    Myodes glareolus;   

Others  :  1141265
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2148-12-44

 received in 2011-03-23, accepted in 2012-03-31,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

To maximize their fitness, parents are assumed to allocate their resources optimally between number and size of offspring. Although this fundamental life-history trade-off has been subject to long standing interest, its genetic basis, especially in wild mammals, still remains unresolved. One important reason for this problem is that a large multigenerational pedigree is required to conduct a reliable analysis of this trade-off.

Results

We used the REML-animal model to estimate genetic parameters for litter size and individual birth size for a common Palearctic small mammal, the bank vole (Myodes glareolus). Even though a phenotypic trade-off between offspring number and size was evident, it was not explained by a genetic trade-off, but rather by negative correlations in permanent and temporary environmental effects. In fact, even positive genetic correlations were estimated between direct genetic effects for offspring number and size indicating that genetic variation in these two traits is not necessarily antagonistic in mammals.

Conclusions

Our results have notable implications for the study of the life-history trade-off between offspring number and size in mammals. The estimated genetic correlations suggest that evolution of offspring number and size in polytocous mammals is not constrained by the trade-off caused by antagonistic selection responses per se, but rather by the opposing correlative selection responses in direct and maternal genetic effects for birth size.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Schroderus et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Smith CC, Fretwell SD: The optimal balance between size and number of offspring. Am Nat 1974, 108:499-506.
• [2]Zera AJ, Harshman LG: The physiology of life history trade-offs in animals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2001, 32:95-126.
• [3]Eneroth A, Linde-Forsberg C, Uhlhorn M, Hall M: Radiographic pelvimetry for assessment of dystocia in bitches: a clinical study in two terrier breeds. J Small Anim Pract 1999, 40(6):257-264.
• [4]Sinervo B, Licht P: Proximate constraints on the evolution of egg size, number, and total clutch mass in lizards. Science 1991, 252(5010):1300-1302.
• [5]Lande R: A Quantitative Genetic Theory of Life History Evolution. Ecology 1982, 63(3):607-615.
• [6]Kruuk LEB, Slate J, Wilson AJ: New Answers for Old Questions: The Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics of Wild Animal Populations. Annu Rev Ecol Evol and Syst 2008, 39:525-548.
• [7]Snyder RJ: Quantitative genetic analysis of life histories in two freshwater populations of the threespine stickleback. Copeia 1991, 2:526-529.
• [8]Gall GAE, Neira R: Genetic analysis of female reproduction traits of fanned coho salmon (Oncorhyncus kisutch). Aquaculture 2004, 234(1-4):143-154.
• [9]Sinervo B, Doughty P: Interactive effects of offspring size and timing of reproduction on offspring reproduction: Experimental, maternal, and quantitative genetic aspects. Evolution 1996, 50(3):1314-1327.
• [10]Brown GP, Shine R: Repeatability and heritability of reproductive traits in free-ranging snakes. J Evol Biol 2007, 20(2):588-596.
• [11]Garant D, Hadfield JD, Kruuk LEB, Sheldon BC: Stability of genetic variance and covariance for reproductive characters in the face of climate change in a wild bird population. Mol Ecol 2008, 17(1):179-188.
• [12]Wu G, Bazer FW, Wallace JM, Spencer TE: Board-invited review: intrauterine growth retardation: implications for the animal sciences. J Anim Sci 2006, 84(9):2316-2337.
• [13]Gluckman PD, Hanson MA: Maternal constraint of fetal growth and its consequences. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2004, 9(5):419-425.
• [14]Wilson AJ, Coltman DW, Pemberton JM, Overall AD, Byrne KA, Kruuk LE: Maternal genetic effects set the potential for evolution in a free-living vertebrate population. J Evol Biol 2005, 18(2):405-414.
• [15]Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Cheverud JM, Moore AJ, Wade MJ: Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. Trends Ecol Evol 1998, 13(2):64-69.
• [16]Moore A, Brodie E, Wolf J: Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process. 1. Direct and indirect genetic effects of social interactions. Evolution 1997, 51(5):1352-1362.
• [17]Roehe R: Genetic determination of individual birth weight and its association with sow productivity traits using Bayesian analyses. J Anim Sci 1999, 77(2):330-343.
• [18]Roff DA: The evolution of life histories: theory and analysis. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1992.
• [19]Mappes T, Koskela E: Genetic basis of the trade-off between offspring number and quality in the bank vole. Evolution 2004, 58(3):645-650.
• [20]Lynch M, Walsh B: Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc; 1998.
• [21]Pemberton JM: Evolution of quantitative traits in the wild: mind the ecology. Phil Trans R Soc B 2010, 365(1552):2431-2438.
• [22]Robinson MR, Wilson AJ, Pilkington JG, Clutton-Brock TH, Pemberton JM, Kruuk LEB: The impact of environmental heterogeneity on genetic architecture in a wild population of Soay sheep. Genetics 2009, 181(4):1639-1648.
• [23]Stenseth NC: Geographic-Distribution of Clethrionomys Species. Ann Zool Fenn 1985, 22(3):215-219.
• [24]Koivula M, Koskela E, Mappes T, Oksanen TA: Cost of reproduction in the wild: Manipulation of reproductive effort in the bank vole. Ecology 2003, 84(2):398-405.
• [25]Oksanen TA, Koskela E, Mappes T: Hormonal Manipulation Of Offspring Number: Maternal Effort And Reproductive Costs. Evolution 2002, 56(7):1530-1537.
• [26]Oksanen TA, Koivula M, Koskela E, Mappes T, Hughes K: The Cost of Reproduction Induced by Body Size at Birth and Breeding Density. Evolution 2007, 61(12):2822-2831.
• [27]Mappes T, Koskela E, Ylonen H: Reproductive costs and litter size in the bank vole. Proc R Soc Lond B 1995, 261(1360):19-24.
• [28]Koskela E: Offspring growth, survival and reproductive success in the bank vole: a litter size manipulation experiment. Oecologia 1998, 115(3):379-384.
• [29]Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Welham SJ, Thompson R: ASReml User Guide Release 1.0. Hemel Hempstead, UK: VSN International Ltd; 2002.
• [30]Gilmour AR, Cullis BR, Harding SA, Thompson R: ASReml Update: What's new in Release 2.00. Hemel Hempstead, UK: VSN International Ltd; 2006.
• [31]Satoh M, Nishida A, van Arendonk JA, van der Lende T: Benefit of multiple trait selection to increase reproductive traits: experimental evidence from golden hamsters. J Anim Sci 1997, 75(12):3103-3113.
• [32]Rastogi RK, Lukefahr SD, Lauckner FB: Maternal heritability and repeatability for litter traits in rabbits in a humid tropical environment. Livest Prod Sci 2000, 67(1-2):123-128.
• [33]Holl JW, Robison OW: Results from nine generations of selection for increased litter size in swine. J Anim Sci 2003, 81(3):624-629.
• [34]Menendez-Buxadera A, Alexandre G, Mandonnet N, Naves M, Aumont G: Direct genetic and maternal effects affecting litter size, birth weight and pre-weaning losses in Creole goats of Guadeloupe. Animal science 2003, 77(3):363-369.
• [35]Holt M, Meuwissen T, Vangen O: Long-term responses, changes in genetic variances and inbreeding depression from 122 generations of selection on increased litter size in mice. J Anim Breed Genet 2005, 122(3):199-209.
• [36]Johnson RK, Nielsen MK, Casey DS: Responses in ovulation rate, embryonal survival, and litter traits in swine to 14 generations of selection to increase litter size. J Anim Sci 1999, 77(3):541-557.
• [37]Clutter AC, Nielsen MK, Johnson RK: Alternative methods of selection for litter size in mice. I. Characterization of base population and development of methods. J Anim Sci 1990, 68(11):3536-3542.
• [38]Analla M, Serradilla JM: Estimation of correlations between ewe litter size and maternal effects on lamb weights in Merino sheep. Genet Sel Evol 1998, 30(5):493-501. BioMed Central Full Text
• [39]Willham RL: The role of maternal effects in animal breeding. III. Biometrical aspects of maternal effects in animals. J Anim Sci 1972, 6:1288-1293.
• [40]Van Noordwijk AJ, Dejong G: Acquisition and Allocation of Resources - their Influence on Variation in Life-History Tactics. Am Nat 1986, 128(1):137-142.
• [41]Oksanen TA, Jokinen I, Koskela E, Mappes T, Vilpas H: Manipulation of offspring number and size: benefits of large body size at birth depend upon the rearing environment. J Anim Ecol 2003, 72(2):321-330.
• [42]Wolf J, Wade M: On the assignment of fitness to parents and offspring: whose fitness is it and when does it matter? J Evol Biol 2001, 14(2):347-356.
• [43]Wilson AJ, Pilkington JG, Pemberton JM, Coltman DW, Overall ADJ, Byrne KA, Kruuk LEB: Selection On Mothers And Offspring: Whose Phenotype Is It And Does It Matter? Evolution 2005, 59(2):451-463.
• [44]Stearns SC: The evolution of life histories: Oxford. UK: Oxford University Press; 1992.
• [45]Blanckenhorn WU, Heyland A: The quantitative genetics of two life history trade-offs in the yellow dung fly in abundant and limited food environments. Evol Ecol 2004, 18(4):385-402.
• [46]Martinez V, Bünger L, Hill WG: Analysis of response to 20 generations of selection for body composition in mice: fit to infinitesimal model assumptions. Genet Sel Evol 2000, 32(1):3-21. BioMed Central Full Text