Excess offspring as a maternal strategy: constraints in the shared nursery of a giant damselfly
Maternal reproductive strategies should optimize the quality and quantity of surviving offspring. In Megaloprepus caerulatus, a damselfly that exhibits male-biased size dimorphism, larval siblicide, and a disproportionate fitness advantage from large sons, mothers lay many more eggs in water-filled tree holes than can survive to emergence. Using field experiments, I tested the siblicide advantage of excess offspring (i.e., faster development and/or larger survivors) in small and large holes and 2 alternative functions of excess offspring (predator satiation and insurance against nonpredator mortality). In small pots, the sole siblicidal survivors emerged larger than noncannibals but no sooner. However, doubling or even quadrupling a modest clutch of 25 failed to produce larger offspring. In large tubs, the size advantage that survivors gained from siblicide was constrained by a trade-off between offspring size and number. A clutch of 20 produced half as many but larger offspring than one of 100. When multiple females contributed eggs to a large nursery, size of survivors was independent of the mother's clutch size. Finally, large clutches failed to satiate dragonfly predators, and although 25 neonates were better than 2 as insurance against nonpredator mortality, a clutch of 50 provided no additional benefit. In natural and experimental holes, survivorship was female biased, suggesting that sons suffered greater mortality than daughters. Because mothers seemed unable to adaptively bias offspring sex ratio, excess offspring may compensate for the lower survivorship of sons, particularly in large nurseries where males garner a disproportionate size advantage relative to females. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 22 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:22:y:2011:i:3:p:543-551. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.