Middleborns disadvantaged? testing birth-order effects on fitness in pre-industrial finns

Parental investment is a limited resource for which offspring compete in order to increase their own survival and reproductive success. However, parents might be selected to influence the outcome of sibling competition through differential investment. While evidence for this is widespread in egg-laying species, whether or not this may also be the case in viviparous species is more difficult to determine. We use pre-industrial Finns as our model system and an equal investment model as our null hypothesis, which predicts that (all else being equal) middleborns should be disadvantaged through competition. We found no overall evidence to suggest that middleborns in a family are disadvantaged in terms of their survival, age at first reproduction or lifetime reproductive success. However, when considering birth-order only among same-sexed siblings, first-, middle-and lastborn sons significantly differed in the number of offspring they were able to rear to adulthood, although there was no similar effect among females. Middleborn sons appeared to produce significantly less offspring than first-or lastborn sons, but they did not significantly differ from lastborn sons in the number of offspring reared to adulthood. Our results thus show that taking sex differences into account is important when modelling birth-order effects. We found clear evidence of firstborn sons being advantaged over other sons in the family, and over firstborn daughters. Therefore, our results suggest that parents invest differentially in their offspring in order to both preferentially favour particular offspring or reduce offspring inequalities arising from sibling competition

Conceptual Analysis of Electron Transpiration Cooling for the Leading Edges of Hypersonic Vehicles

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140441/1/6.2014-2674.pd

Increased Mortality Exposure within the Family Rather than Individual Mortality Experiences Triggers Faster Life-History Strategies in Historic Human Populations

Life History Theory predicts that extrinsic mortality risk is one of the most important factors shaping (human) life histories. Evidence from contemporary populations suggests that individuals confronted with high mortality environments show characteristic traits of fast life-history strategies: they marry and reproduce earlier, have shorter birth intervals and invest less in their offspring. However, little is known of the impact of mortality experiences on the speed of life histories in historical human populations with generally higher mortality risk, and on male life histories in particular. Furthermore, it remains unknown whether individual-level mortality experiences within the family have a greater effect on life-history decisions or family membership explains life-history variation. In a comparative approach using event history analyses, we study the impact of family versus individual-level effects of mortality exposure on two central life-history parameters, ages at first marriage and first birth, in three historical human populations (Germany, Finland, Canada). Mortality experience is measured as the confrontation with sibling deaths within the natal family up to an individual's age of 15. Results show that the speed of life histories is not adjusted according to individual-level mortality experiences but is due to family-level effects. The general finding of lower ages at marriage/reproduction after exposure to higher mortality in the family holds for both females and males. This study provides evidence for the importance of the family environment for reproductive timing while individual-level mortality experiences seem to play only a minor role in reproductive life history decisions in humans

Mothers with higher twinning propensity had lower fertility in pre-industrial Europe

Historically, mothers producing twins gave birth, on average, more often than non-twinners. This observation has been interpreted as twinners having higher intrinsic fertility - a tendency to conceive easily irrespective of age and other factors - which has shaped both hypotheses about why twinning persists and varies across populations, and the design of medical studies on female fertility. Here we show in >20k pre-industrial European mothers that this interpretation results from an ecological fallacy: twinners had more births not due to higher intrinsic fertility, but because mothers that gave birth more accumulated more opportunities to produce twins. Controlling for variation in the exposure to the risk of twinning reveals that mothers with higher twinning propensity - a physiological predisposition to producing twins - had fewer births, and when twin mortality was high, fewer offspring reaching adulthood. Twinning rates may thus be driven by variation in its mortality costs, rather than variation in intrinsic fertility

Reproductive failure, possible maternal infanticide, and cannibalism in wild moustached tamarins, Saguinus mystax

Maternal infanticide in wild non-human primates has only been reported twice. In this paper, we report a possible new case of infanticide and cannibalism within a series of four successive reproductive failures in wild moustached tamarins, Saguinus mystax. Necropsy and genetic analyses of the corpses enabled us to rule out any pathology, and to determine paternity. The mother was seen biting and then eating the head of its own infant during a period when another female was pregnant and gave birth just 1 month later. Before that, the perpetrator had given birth to twins three times successfully when four to five adult and subadult males were present in the group. Although we do not know for certain that the infant was alive when the mother started biting it, our field observations preceding the event suggest it probably was. The possible infanticide case and the two cases of births and early death of the infants occurred while only two to three adult males were present in the group. This could be the second case of maternal infanticide reported in the genus Saguinus and the similar circumstances suggest a common pattern. We discuss these events in the light of the different functional explanations of infanticide and conclude that parental manipulation was the most likely: the mother could have terminated the investment in offspring that had low chances of survival in a group with low availability of helpers

Why male orangutans do not kill infants

Infanticide is widespread among mammals, is particularly common in primates, and has been shown to be an adaptive male strategy under certain conditions. Although no infanticides in wild orangutans have been reported to date, several authors have suggested that infanticide has been an important selection pressure influencing orangutan behavior and the evolution of orangutan social systems. In this paper, we critically assess this suggestion. We begin by investigating whether wild orangutans have been studied for a sufficiently long period that we might reasonably expect to have detected infanticide if it occurs. We consider whether orangutan females exhibit counterstrategies typically employed by other mammalian females. We also assess the hypothesis that orangutan females form special bonds with particular “protector males” to guard against infanticide. Lastly, we discuss socioecological reasons why orangutan males may not benefit from infanticide. We conclude that there is limited evidence for female counterstrategies and little support for the protector male hypothesis. Aspects of orangutan paternity certainty, lactational amenorrhea, and ranging behavior may explain why infanticide is not a strategy regularly employed by orangutan males on Sumatra or Borneo

Population, resources, and environment: Implications of human behavioral ecology for conservation

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43481/1/11111_2005_Article_BF02207996.pd

Reproductive inequality in humans and other mammals

Data, Materials, and Software Availability: All study data are included in the article and/or supporting information available online at https://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220124120#supplementary-materials .Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). To address claims of human exceptionalism, we determine where humans fit within the greater mammalian distribution of reproductive inequality. We show that humans exhibit lower reproductive skew (i.e., inequality in the number of surviving offspring) among males and smaller sex differences in reproductive skew than most other mammals, while nevertheless falling within the mammalian range. Additionally, female reproductive skew is higher in polygynous human populations than in polygynous nonhumans mammals on average. This patterning of skew can be attributed in part to the prevalence of monogamy in humans compared to the predominance of polygyny in nonhuman mammals, to the limited degree of polygyny in the human societies that practice it, and to the importance of unequally held rival resources to women’s fitness. The muted reproductive inequality observed in humans appears to be linked to several unusual characteristics of our species—including high levels of cooperation among males, high dependence on unequally held rival resources, complementarities between maternal and paternal investment, as well as social and legal institutions that enforce monogamous norms.This work was conducted as a part of the “Emergence of Hierarchy and Leadership in Mammalian Societies” group at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, supported by NSF Award DBI-1300426 and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. It was supported by NSF awards SMA-1329089 and SMA-1743019, and the Santa Fe Institute, as well as the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture. S.G. was supported by the US Army Research Office grants W911NF-14-1-0637, W911NF-17-1-0150, and the Office of Naval Research grant W911NF-18-1-0138. Additional funding for data collection was provided by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research awards: 8913 and 7970, by NSF awards: BCS-0924630, BCS-0925910, BCS-0848360, BCS-0514559, BCS-0613226, BCS-0827277, SES-9870429, and DDRIG-1357209, by the National Geographic Society awards: HJ-099R-17, 20113909, 8671-09, and 7968-06, by the Kone Foundation awards: 086809, 088423, and 088423, and by the Jacobs Foundation, the UCSB Broom Center for Demography, and the UCSB Department of Anthropology