Bigger is not always better: Offspring size does not predict growth or survival for seven ascidian species
The presumed trade-off between offspring size and quality predicted by life history theory is often invoked to explain the wide range of propagule sizes observed in animals and plants. This trade-off is broadly supported by intraspecific studies but has been difficult to test in an interspecific con...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecology (Durham) 2010-12, Vol.91 (12), p.3598-3608 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 3608 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | 3598 |
container_title | Ecology (Durham) |
container_volume | 91 |
creator | Jacobs, Molly W. Sherrard, Kristin M. |
description | The presumed trade-off between offspring size and quality predicted by life history theory is often invoked to explain the wide range of propagule sizes observed in animals and plants. This trade-off is broadly supported by intraspecific studies but has been difficult to test in an interspecific context, particularly in animals. We tested the fitness consequences of offspring size both intra- and interspecifically for seven species of ascidians (sessile, suspension-feeding, marine invertebrates) whose offspring volumes varied over three orders of magnitude. We measured two major components of fitness, juvenile growth rates and survival, in laboratory and field experiments encompassing several food conditions. Contrary to the predictions of life history theory, larger offspring size did not result in higher rates of growth or survival, and large offspring did not perform better under nutritional stress, either intraspecifically or interspecifically. In fact, two of the four species with small offspring grew rapidly enough to catch up in size to the species with large offspring in as little as eight weeks, under wild-type food conditions. Trade-offs between growth potential and defense may overwhelm and obscure any trade-offs between offspring size and survival or growth rate. While large initial size may still confer a competitive advantage, we failed to detect any consequences of interspecific variation in initial size. This implies that larger offspring in these species, far from being inherently superior in growth or survival, require compensation in other aspects of life history if reproductive effort is to be efficient. Our results suggest that the importance of initial offspring size is context dependent and often overestimated relative to other life history traits. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1890/09-2072.1 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_853488634</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>29779543</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>29779543</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a5338-965e0d9d1ff0ac108b363287c11a0e24454f9369202ebffdc7b5e1cc8a946a913</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU2LFDEQhoMo7uzqwR-gBBcRD7Omkv5IvOmwfsDCXvTgKaTTlTFDT3ebdM8w_nrT9uiAuGAuReCpt-qtl5AnwK5AKvaaqSVnJb-Ce2QBSqilgpLdJwvGgC9Vkcszch7jhqUHmXxIzjgIxqWABdm88-s1BuojbbuBmmZvDpFWOAwY3tBb52IffLum0f9AWnc4Y33A2tuBrkO3H77RLtA4hp3fmYa66YM7bKmJ1tfetDT2aD3GR-SBM03Ex8d6Qb68v_68-ri8uf3wafX2ZmlyIeS0L7Ja1eAcMxaYrEQhuCwtgGHIsyzPnBKF4oxj5VxtyypHsFYalRVGgbggL2fdPnTfR4yD3vposWlMi90YtcxFJmUhsv8ggfMi5xP5_C9y042hTTa0BCnTZCgTdHkXxFM-yRzwab1XM2VDF2NAp9OFtyYcNDA9xamZ0lOcemKfHRXHaov1H_J3fgl4cQTStU3jgmmtjydOlJArJRNXzNzeN3i4e6K-Xn3lDJgC4CL_1fh0btzEoQsnYVWWKs_EybMZDn3XaozmHz5-AlyqyO8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2207338121</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bigger is not always better: Offspring size does not predict growth or survival for seven ascidian species</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Jacobs, Molly W. ; Sherrard, Kristin M.</creator><contributor>Raimondi, PT</contributor><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, Molly W. ; Sherrard, Kristin M. ; Raimondi, PT</creatorcontrib><description>The presumed trade-off between offspring size and quality predicted by life history theory is often invoked to explain the wide range of propagule sizes observed in animals and plants. This trade-off is broadly supported by intraspecific studies but has been difficult to test in an interspecific context, particularly in animals. We tested the fitness consequences of offspring size both intra- and interspecifically for seven species of ascidians (sessile, suspension-feeding, marine invertebrates) whose offspring volumes varied over three orders of magnitude. We measured two major components of fitness, juvenile growth rates and survival, in laboratory and field experiments encompassing several food conditions. Contrary to the predictions of life history theory, larger offspring size did not result in higher rates of growth or survival, and large offspring did not perform better under nutritional stress, either intraspecifically or interspecifically. In fact, two of the four species with small offspring grew rapidly enough to catch up in size to the species with large offspring in as little as eight weeks, under wild-type food conditions. Trade-offs between growth potential and defense may overwhelm and obscure any trade-offs between offspring size and survival or growth rate. While large initial size may still confer a competitive advantage, we failed to detect any consequences of interspecific variation in initial size. This implies that larger offspring in these species, far from being inherently superior in growth or survival, require compensation in other aspects of life history if reproductive effort is to be efficient. Our results suggest that the importance of initial offspring size is context dependent and often overestimated relative to other life history traits.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-9658</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-9170</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1890/09-2072.1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21302831</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ECGYAQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: Ecological Society of America</publisher><subject>Animal and plant ecology ; Animal reproduction ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Animals ; Aquatic life ; ascidian ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biological taxonomies ; Body Size ; Carbon ; Ecological genetics ; Ecological life histories ; Ecology ; Eggs ; Field tests ; Fitness ; Food ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; Growth rate ; Interspecific ; Invertebrates ; Larva - physiology ; Larvae ; Less representative or incertae sedis groups: acanthocephala, chaetognatha, gnathostomulida, lophophoria, merostomata, mesozoa, myxozoa, nematorhyncha, pararthropoda, placozoa, priapuloidea, prochordata, pycnogonida, rotifera ; Life history ; Life prediction ; Marine ; Marine ecology ; Marine invertebrates ; Mortality ; Nutrient deficiency ; Offspring ; offspring size ; Physical growth ; Reproductive effort ; Size ; size-quality tradeoff ; Species ; Species Specificity ; Survival ; Time Factors ; tunicate ; Urochordata - growth & development ; Urochordata - physiology ; Wetland ecology ; Young animals</subject><ispartof>Ecology (Durham), 2010-12, Vol.91 (12), p.3598-3608</ispartof><rights>Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>Copyright © 2010 The Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2010 by the Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Society for Community Research and Action</rights><rights>Copyright Ecological Society of America Dec 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a5338-965e0d9d1ff0ac108b363287c11a0e24454f9369202ebffdc7b5e1cc8a946a913</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a5338-965e0d9d1ff0ac108b363287c11a0e24454f9369202ebffdc7b5e1cc8a946a913</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29779543$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/29779543$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,800,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556,57998,58231</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=23715998$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21302831$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Raimondi, PT</contributor><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, Molly W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherrard, Kristin M.</creatorcontrib><title>Bigger is not always better: Offspring size does not predict growth or survival for seven ascidian species</title><title>Ecology (Durham)</title><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><description>The presumed trade-off between offspring size and quality predicted by life history theory is often invoked to explain the wide range of propagule sizes observed in animals and plants. This trade-off is broadly supported by intraspecific studies but has been difficult to test in an interspecific context, particularly in animals. We tested the fitness consequences of offspring size both intra- and interspecifically for seven species of ascidians (sessile, suspension-feeding, marine invertebrates) whose offspring volumes varied over three orders of magnitude. We measured two major components of fitness, juvenile growth rates and survival, in laboratory and field experiments encompassing several food conditions. Contrary to the predictions of life history theory, larger offspring size did not result in higher rates of growth or survival, and large offspring did not perform better under nutritional stress, either intraspecifically or interspecifically. In fact, two of the four species with small offspring grew rapidly enough to catch up in size to the species with large offspring in as little as eight weeks, under wild-type food conditions. Trade-offs between growth potential and defense may overwhelm and obscure any trade-offs between offspring size and survival or growth rate. While large initial size may still confer a competitive advantage, we failed to detect any consequences of interspecific variation in initial size. This implies that larger offspring in these species, far from being inherently superior in growth or survival, require compensation in other aspects of life history if reproductive effort is to be efficient. Our results suggest that the importance of initial offspring size is context dependent and often overestimated relative to other life history traits.</description><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal reproduction</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Aquatic life</subject><subject>ascidian</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biological taxonomies</subject><subject>Body Size</subject><subject>Carbon</subject><subject>Ecological genetics</subject><subject>Ecological life histories</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Eggs</subject><subject>Field tests</subject><subject>Fitness</subject><subject>Food</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Growth rate</subject><subject>Interspecific</subject><subject>Invertebrates</subject><subject>Larva - physiology</subject><subject>Larvae</subject><subject>Less representative or incertae sedis groups: acanthocephala, chaetognatha, gnathostomulida, lophophoria, merostomata, mesozoa, myxozoa, nematorhyncha, pararthropoda, placozoa, priapuloidea, prochordata, pycnogonida, rotifera</subject><subject>Life history</subject><subject>Life prediction</subject><subject>Marine</subject><subject>Marine ecology</subject><subject>Marine invertebrates</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Nutrient deficiency</subject><subject>Offspring</subject><subject>offspring size</subject><subject>Physical growth</subject><subject>Reproductive effort</subject><subject>Size</subject><subject>size-quality tradeoff</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Species Specificity</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>tunicate</subject><subject>Urochordata - growth & development</subject><subject>Urochordata - physiology</subject><subject>Wetland ecology</subject><subject>Young animals</subject><issn>0012-9658</issn><issn>1939-9170</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU2LFDEQhoMo7uzqwR-gBBcRD7Omkv5IvOmwfsDCXvTgKaTTlTFDT3ebdM8w_nrT9uiAuGAuReCpt-qtl5AnwK5AKvaaqSVnJb-Ce2QBSqilgpLdJwvGgC9Vkcszch7jhqUHmXxIzjgIxqWABdm88-s1BuojbbuBmmZvDpFWOAwY3tBb52IffLum0f9AWnc4Y33A2tuBrkO3H77RLtA4hp3fmYa66YM7bKmJ1tfetDT2aD3GR-SBM03Ex8d6Qb68v_68-ri8uf3wafX2ZmlyIeS0L7Ja1eAcMxaYrEQhuCwtgGHIsyzPnBKF4oxj5VxtyypHsFYalRVGgbggL2fdPnTfR4yD3vposWlMi90YtcxFJmUhsv8ggfMi5xP5_C9y042hTTa0BCnTZCgTdHkXxFM-yRzwab1XM2VDF2NAp9OFtyYcNDA9xamZ0lOcemKfHRXHaov1H_J3fgl4cQTStU3jgmmtjydOlJArJRNXzNzeN3i4e6K-Xn3lDJgC4CL_1fh0btzEoQsnYVWWKs_EybMZDn3XaozmHz5-AlyqyO8</recordid><startdate>201012</startdate><enddate>201012</enddate><creator>Jacobs, Molly W.</creator><creator>Sherrard, Kristin M.</creator><general>Ecological Society of America</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201012</creationdate><title>Bigger is not always better: Offspring size does not predict growth or survival for seven ascidian species</title><author>Jacobs, Molly W. ; Sherrard, Kristin M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a5338-965e0d9d1ff0ac108b363287c11a0e24454f9369202ebffdc7b5e1cc8a946a913</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal reproduction</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Aquatic life</topic><topic>ascidian</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biological taxonomies</topic><topic>Body Size</topic><topic>Carbon</topic><topic>Ecological genetics</topic><topic>Ecological life histories</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Eggs</topic><topic>Field tests</topic><topic>Fitness</topic><topic>Food</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Growth rate</topic><topic>Interspecific</topic><topic>Invertebrates</topic><topic>Larva - physiology</topic><topic>Larvae</topic><topic>Less representative or incertae sedis groups: acanthocephala, chaetognatha, gnathostomulida, lophophoria, merostomata, mesozoa, myxozoa, nematorhyncha, pararthropoda, placozoa, priapuloidea, prochordata, pycnogonida, rotifera</topic><topic>Life history</topic><topic>Life prediction</topic><topic>Marine</topic><topic>Marine ecology</topic><topic>Marine invertebrates</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Nutrient deficiency</topic><topic>Offspring</topic><topic>offspring size</topic><topic>Physical growth</topic><topic>Reproductive effort</topic><topic>Size</topic><topic>size-quality tradeoff</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Species Specificity</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>tunicate</topic><topic>Urochordata - growth & development</topic><topic>Urochordata - physiology</topic><topic>Wetland ecology</topic><topic>Young animals</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, Molly W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherrard, Kristin M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jacobs, Molly W.</au><au>Sherrard, Kristin M.</au><au>Raimondi, PT</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bigger is not always better: Offspring size does not predict growth or survival for seven ascidian species</atitle><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><date>2010-12</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>3598</spage><epage>3608</epage><pages>3598-3608</pages><issn>0012-9658</issn><eissn>1939-9170</eissn><coden>ECGYAQ</coden><abstract>The presumed trade-off between offspring size and quality predicted by life history theory is often invoked to explain the wide range of propagule sizes observed in animals and plants. This trade-off is broadly supported by intraspecific studies but has been difficult to test in an interspecific context, particularly in animals. We tested the fitness consequences of offspring size both intra- and interspecifically for seven species of ascidians (sessile, suspension-feeding, marine invertebrates) whose offspring volumes varied over three orders of magnitude. We measured two major components of fitness, juvenile growth rates and survival, in laboratory and field experiments encompassing several food conditions. Contrary to the predictions of life history theory, larger offspring size did not result in higher rates of growth or survival, and large offspring did not perform better under nutritional stress, either intraspecifically or interspecifically. In fact, two of the four species with small offspring grew rapidly enough to catch up in size to the species with large offspring in as little as eight weeks, under wild-type food conditions. Trade-offs between growth potential and defense may overwhelm and obscure any trade-offs between offspring size and survival or growth rate. While large initial size may still confer a competitive advantage, we failed to detect any consequences of interspecific variation in initial size. This implies that larger offspring in these species, far from being inherently superior in growth or survival, require compensation in other aspects of life history if reproductive effort is to be efficient. Our results suggest that the importance of initial offspring size is context dependent and often overestimated relative to other life history traits.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>Ecological Society of America</pub><pmid>21302831</pmid><doi>10.1890/09-2072.1</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0012-9658 |
ispartof | Ecology (Durham), 2010-12, Vol.91 (12), p.3598-3608 |
issn | 0012-9658 1939-9170 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_853488634 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Jstor Complete Legacy |
subjects | Animal and plant ecology Animal reproduction Animal, plant and microbial ecology Animals Aquatic life ascidian Biological and medical sciences Biological taxonomies Body Size Carbon Ecological genetics Ecological life histories Ecology Eggs Field tests Fitness Food Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology General aspects Growth rate Interspecific Invertebrates Larva - physiology Larvae Less representative or incertae sedis groups: acanthocephala, chaetognatha, gnathostomulida, lophophoria, merostomata, mesozoa, myxozoa, nematorhyncha, pararthropoda, placozoa, priapuloidea, prochordata, pycnogonida, rotifera Life history Life prediction Marine Marine ecology Marine invertebrates Mortality Nutrient deficiency Offspring offspring size Physical growth Reproductive effort Size size-quality tradeoff Species Species Specificity Survival Time Factors tunicate Urochordata - growth & development Urochordata - physiology Wetland ecology Young animals |
title | Bigger is not always better: Offspring size does not predict growth or survival for seven ascidian species |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T12%3A46%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bigger%20is%20not%20always%20better:%20Offspring%20size%20does%20not%20predict%20growth%20or%20survival%20for%20seven%20ascidian%20species&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20(Durham)&rft.au=Jacobs,%20Molly%20W.&rft.date=2010-12&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=3598&rft.epage=3608&rft.pages=3598-3608&rft.issn=0012-9658&rft.eissn=1939-9170&rft.coden=ECGYAQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1890/09-2072.1&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E29779543%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2207338121&rft_id=info:pmid/21302831&rft_jstor_id=29779543&rfr_iscdi=true |