Abstract
Recently, Zammuto (R. M. Zammuto. 1986. Can. J. Zool. 64: 2739–2749) suggested that North American game birds exhibited survival–fecundity trade-offs consistent with the "cost of reproduction" hypothesis. However, there were four serious problems with the data and the analyses that Zammuto used: (i) the species chosen for analysis ("game birds") showed little taxonomic or ecological uniformity, (ii) the measures of future reproductive value (maximum longevity) were severely biased by unequal sample sizes of band recoveries, (iii) the measures of current reproductive effort (clutch sizes) were inappropriate given that most of the birds analyzed produce self-feeding precocial offspring, and (iv) the statistical units used in the majority of analyses (species) were not statistically independent with respect to higher level taxonomy. After correcting these problems, I found little evidence of survival–fecundity trade-offs among precocial game birds, and I attribute most of the explainable variation in life-history traits of these birds to allometry, phylogeny, and geography.
Publisher
Canadian Science Publishing
Subject
Animal Science and Zoology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献