2011
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2569
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Natural ‘poor start’ does not increase mortality over the lifetime

Abstract: Poor nutrition and other challenges during infancy can impose delayed costs, and it has been proposed that expression of costs during adulthood should involve increased mortality rather than reduced reproduction. Demonstrations of delayed costs come mostly from experimental manipulations of the diet and hormones of captive infants of short-lived species, and we know very little about how natural poor starts in life affect wild animals over their lifetimes. In the blue-footed booby, sibling conflict obliges you… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
38
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
0
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Body condition of former juniors was deficient at age 4–6 yr (they weighed 8.04% less than seniors), near the start of reproductive life, but improved to equal that of former seniors and singletons by age 7–8 yr. Improvement in body condition with age in our cross‐sectional sample could be due to early mortality of inferior boobies, but juniors do not suffer greater mortality than seniors at these ages (Drummond et al 2011) and body condition of seniors did not undergo similar apparent improvement. More likely, individual juniors improve in condition as they age, eventually recovering completely from their initial setback, just as juniors produce better quality fledglings (more likely to recruit) after age 3 yr (Drummond and Rodríguez 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 74%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Body condition of former juniors was deficient at age 4–6 yr (they weighed 8.04% less than seniors), near the start of reproductive life, but improved to equal that of former seniors and singletons by age 7–8 yr. Improvement in body condition with age in our cross‐sectional sample could be due to early mortality of inferior boobies, but juniors do not suffer greater mortality than seniors at these ages (Drummond et al 2011) and body condition of seniors did not undergo similar apparent improvement. More likely, individual juniors improve in condition as they age, eventually recovering completely from their initial setback, just as juniors produce better quality fledglings (more likely to recruit) after age 3 yr (Drummond and Rodríguez 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…In the blue‐footed booby’s system of facultative brood reduction, more juniors than seniors die during the nestling period (40% vs 29%, unpublished data from 24 seasons) because dominant nestlings respond to underfeeding, when it occurs, by killing their broodmates (Drummond and Chavelas 1989). However, once fledged, juniors do not have lower rates of survival or recruitment than seniors at any age up to 20 yr (Drummond et al 2011), nor do they reproduce at a later age or date, or less successfully than seniors, in the first 16 yr of life, although offspring they fledge in their first three years of life (only) are of poor quality (Drummond et al 2003, Drummond and Rodríguez 2013).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…low food availability during both rearing and wintering periods) would endure greater survival costs later in life. In addition, we predicted that, since the study species is a long-lived bird, these effects would be strong in the first years of life and weak or non-existent on adult survival [7,19].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Harsh conditions include unfavourable climate, high population size, low habitat quality, poor parental quality and low food availability, and their potential interaction (see electronic supplementary material S1) [2][3][4][5]. The ability of offspring to compensate for a poor start in life determines whether early-life conditions have short-or long-term fitness consequences [6][7][8]. The former, also known as numerical effects, involve changes in traits such as pre-breeding survival, birth weight, birth date and body growth; the latter, known as delayed quality effects, affect future breeding performance and thus result in changes in the age of first breeding attempts, lifetime reproductive success and adult survival [2][3][4][5][9][10][11][12][13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%