R/K selection theory: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Reverting possible vandalism by 168.254.225.243 to version by Plumbago. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (1263133) (Bot)
m → Cite journal, book
Line 3: Line 3:
In [[ecology]], '''r/K selection theory''' relates to the [[natural selection|selection]] of combinations of [[Trait (biological)|trait]]s in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring. The focus upon either increased quantity of offspring at the expense of individual [[parental investment]], or reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment, varies widely, seemingly to promote success in particular environments. In this context, r-selection makes a species prone to numerous reproduction at low cost per an individual offspring, while K-selected species expend high cost in reproduction for a low number of more difficult to produce offspring. Neither mode of propagation is intrinsically superior, and in fact they can coexist in the same habitat, as in rodents and elephants.
In [[ecology]], '''r/K selection theory''' relates to the [[natural selection|selection]] of combinations of [[Trait (biological)|trait]]s in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring. The focus upon either increased quantity of offspring at the expense of individual [[parental investment]], or reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment, varies widely, seemingly to promote success in particular environments. In this context, r-selection makes a species prone to numerous reproduction at low cost per an individual offspring, while K-selected species expend high cost in reproduction for a low number of more difficult to produce offspring. Neither mode of propagation is intrinsically superior, and in fact they can coexist in the same habitat, as in rodents and elephants.


The theory was popular in the 1970s and 1980s when it was used as a [[heuristic]] device, but lost importance in the early 1990s as it was criticized by several empirical studies.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Roff | first=D. | year=1992 | url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/0412023911 | title=The Evolution of Life Histories: Theory and Analysis. London: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last=Stearns | first=S.C. | year=1992 | url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198577419 | title=The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.}}</ref> The r/K selection paradigm has been replaced by a "[[Life_history_theory|life-history]]" paradigm. However, this continues to incorporate many of the themes important to the r/K paradigm.<ref name=ReznickEA2002/>
The theory was popular in the 1970s and 1980s when it was used as a [[heuristic]] device, but lost importance in the early 1990s as it was criticized by several empirical studies.<ref>{{cite book |first=Derek A. |last=Roff |title=Evolution Of Life Histories: Theory and Analysis |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=_pv37gw8CIoC |year=1993 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-0-412-02391-0}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Stephen C. |last=Stearns |title=The Evolution of Life Histories |year=1992 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-857741-6 |url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198577419 }}</ref> The r/K selection paradigm has been replaced by a "[[Life_history_theory|life-history]]" paradigm. However, this continues to incorporate many of the themes important to the r/K paradigm.<ref name=ReznickEA2002/>


The terminology of r/K-selection was coined by the ecologists [[Robert MacArthur]] and [[E. O. Wilson]]<ref name="Pianka, E.R 1970">{{cite journal | last1 = Pianka | first1 = E.R. | authorlink = Eric Pianka | year = 1970 | title = On r and K selection | url = | journal = American Naturalist | volume = 104 | issue = 940| pages = 592–597 | doi = 10.1086/282697 }}</ref> based on their work on [[island biogeography]].<ref>[[Robert MacArthur|MacArthur, R.]] and [[E. O. Wilson|Wilson, E.O.]] (1967). ''[[The Theory of Island Biogeography]]'', Princeton University Press (2001 reprint), ISBN 0-691-08836-5M.</ref>
The terminology of r/K-selection was coined by the ecologists [[Robert MacArthur]] and [[E. O. Wilson]]<ref name="Pianka, E.R 1970">{{cite journal | last1 = Pianka | first1 = E.R. | authorlink = Eric Pianka | year = 1970 | title = On r and K selection | journal = American Naturalist | volume = 104 | issue = 940| pages = 592–597 | doi = 10.1086/282697 }}</ref> based on their work on [[island biogeography]].<ref>{{cite book |authorlink1=Robert MacArthur |last1=MacArthur |first1=R. |authorlink2=E. O. Wilson |last2=Wilson |first2=E.O. |title=[[The Theory of Island Biogeography]] |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1967 |isbn=0-691-08836-5M |edition=2001 reprint}}</ref>


==Overview==
==Overview==
In r/K selection theory, selective pressures are [[hypothesis]]ed to drive [[evolution]] in one of two generalized directions: ''r''- or ''K''-selection.<ref name="Pianka, E.R 1970"/> These terms, r and K, are drawn from standard ecological [[algebra]], as illustrated in the simplified [[Logistic function#In ecology: modeling population growth|Verhulst model]] of [[population dynamics]]:<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Verhulst | first1 = P.F. | authorlink = Pierre François Verhulst | year = 1838 | title = Notice sur la loi que la population pursuit dans son accroissement | url = | journal = Corresp. Math. Phys. | volume = 10 | issue = | pages = 113–121 }}</ref>
In r/K selection theory, selective pressures are [[hypothesis]]ed to drive [[evolution]] in one of two generalized directions: ''r''- or ''K''-selection.<ref name="Pianka, E.R 1970"/> These terms, r and K, are drawn from standard ecological [[algebra]], as illustrated in the simplified [[Logistic function#In ecology: modeling population growth|Verhulst model]] of [[population dynamics]]:<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Verhulst | first1 = P.F. | authorlink = Pierre François Verhulst | year = 1838 | title = Notice sur la loi que la population pursuit dans son accroissement | journal = Corresp. Math. Phys. | volume = 10 | pages = 113–121 |url=http://books.google.com.au/books?id=eRNbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA113
}}</ref>


:<math> \frac{dN}{dt} = rN \left(1 - \frac{N}{K}\right) </math>
:<math> \frac{dN}{dt} = rN \left(1 - \frac{N}{K}\right) </math>
Line 30: Line 31:


==In ecological succession==
==In ecological succession==
In areas of major ecological disruption or sterilisation (such as after a major [[volcanism|volcanic]] eruption, as at [[Krakatoa]] or [[Mount Saint Helens]]), r- and K-strategists play distinct roles in the [[ecological succession]] that regenerates the [[ecosystem]]. Because of their higher reproductive rates and ecological opportunism, primary colonisers typically are r-strategists and they are followed by a succession of increasingly competitive [[flora]] and [[fauna]]. The ability of an environment to increase energetic content, through photosynthetic capture of solar energy, increases with the increase in complex [[biodiversity]] as r species proliferate to reach a peak possible with K strategies.<ref>Gunderson, L. & Holling, C.S. (Eds) (2001), "Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems" (Island Press)</ref>
In areas of major ecological disruption or sterilisation (such as after a major [[volcanism|volcanic]] eruption, as at [[Krakatoa]] or [[Mount Saint Helens]]), r- and K-strategists play distinct roles in the [[ecological succession]] that regenerates the [[ecosystem]]. Because of their higher reproductive rates and ecological opportunism, primary colonisers typically are r-strategists and they are followed by a succession of increasingly competitive [[flora]] and [[fauna]]. The ability of an environment to increase energetic content, through photosynthetic capture of solar energy, increases with the increase in complex [[biodiversity]] as r species proliferate to reach a peak possible with K strategies.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Lance H. |last1=Gunderson |first2=C.S. |last2=Holling |title=Panarchy: Understanding Transformations In Human And Natural Systems |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=DHcjtSM5TogC |year=2001 |publisher=Island Press |isbn=978-1-55963-857-9}}</ref>


Eventually a new equilibrium is approached (sometimes referred to as a [[climax community]]), with r-strategists gradually being replaced by K-strategists which are more competitive and better adapted to the emerging micro-environmental characteristics of the [[landscape]]. Traditionally, biodiversity was considered maximized at this stage, with introductions of new species resulting in the replacement and [[local extinction]] of [[Endemism|endemic]] species.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = McNeely | first1 = J. A. | year = 1994 | title = Lessons of the past: Forests and Biodiversity | url = http://www.springerlink.com/content/t76125571tr97m64/ | journal = Biodiversity and Conservation | volume = 3 | issue = | pages = 3–20 | doi = 10.1007/BF00115329 }}</ref> However, the [[Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis]] posits that intermediate levels of disturbance in a landscape create patches at different levels of succession, promoting coexistence of colonizers and competitors at the regional scale.{{Citation needed|date=July 2011}}
Eventually a new equilibrium is approached (sometimes referred to as a [[climax community]]), with r-strategists gradually being replaced by K-strategists which are more competitive and better adapted to the emerging micro-environmental characteristics of the [[landscape]]. Traditionally, biodiversity was considered maximized at this stage, with introductions of new species resulting in the replacement and [[local extinction]] of [[Endemism|endemic]] species.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = McNeely | first1 = J. A. | year = 1994 | title = Lessons of the past: Forests and Biodiversity | url = http://www.springerlink.com/content/t76125571tr97m64/ | journal = Biodiversity and Conservation | volume = 3 | pages = 3–20 | doi = 10.1007/BF00115329 }}</ref> However, the [[Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis]] posits that intermediate levels of disturbance in a landscape create patches at different levels of succession, promoting coexistence of colonizers and competitors at the regional scale.{{Citation needed|date=July 2011}}


==Status of the theory==
==Status of the theory==
Although r/K selection theory became widely used during the 1970s,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Gadgil | first1 = M. | last2 = Solbrig | first2 = O.T. | year = 1972 | title = Concept of r-selection and K-selection - evidence from wild flowers and some theoretical consideration | url = | journal = Am. Nat. | volume = 106 | issue = | page = 14 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Long | first1 = T. | last2 = Long | first2 = G. | year = 1974 | title = Effects of r-selection and K-selection on components of variance for 2 quantitative traits | url = | journal = Genetics | volume = 76 | issue = 3| pages = 567–573 | pmid = 4208860 | pmc = 1213086 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Grahame | first1 = J. | year = 1977 | title = Reproductive effort and r-selection and K-selection in 2 species of ''Lacuna'' (Gastropoda-Prosobranchia) | url = | journal = Mar. Biol. | volume = 40 | issue = 3| pages = 217–224 | doi = 10.1007/BF00390877 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Luckinbill | first1 = L.S. | year = 1978 | title = r and K selection in experimental populations of ''Escherichia coli'' | url = | journal = Science | volume = 202 | issue = 4373| pages = 1201–1203 | doi = 10.1126/science.202.4373.1201 | pmid = 17735406 }}</ref> it also began to attract more critical attention.<ref name=wilbur74>{{cite journal | last=Wilbur | first=H.M. | year=1974 | title=Environmental certainty, trophic level, and resource availability in life history evolution | journal=American Naturalist | volume=108 | pages=805–816 | doi=10.1086/282956 | coauthors=Tinkle, D.W. and Collins, J.P. | issue=964 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Barbault | first1 = R. | year = 1987 | title = Are still r-selection and K-selection operative concepts? | url = | journal = Acta Oecologica-Oecologia Generalis | volume = 8 | issue = | pages = 63–70 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kuno | first1 = E. | year = 1991 | title = Some strange properties of the logistic equation defined with r and K – inherent defects or artifacts | url = | journal = Researches on Population Ecology | volume = 33 | issue = | pages = 33–39 | doi = 10.1007/BF02514572 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Getz | first1 = W.M. | year = 1993 | title = Metaphysiological and evolutionary dynamics of populations exploiting constant and interactive resources – r-K selection revisited | url = | journal = Evolutionary Ecology | volume = 7 | issue = 3| pages = 287–305 | doi = 10.1007/BF01237746 }}</ref> In particular, an influential review by the ecologist [[Stephen C. Stearns]] drew attention to gaps in the theory, and to ambiguities in the interpretation of empirical data for testing it.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Stearns, S.C.|year=1977|title=Evolution of life-history traits – critique of theory and a review of data|journal=Ann. Rev. of Ecology and Systematics|volume=8|pages=145–171|url=http://faculty.washington.edu/kerrb/Stearns1977.pdf|format=PDF|doi=10.1146/annurev.es.08.110177.001045}}</ref> In 1981 a review of the r/K selection literature by Parry, demonstrated that there was no agreement among researchers using the theory about the definition of r and K selection, which led him to question whether the assumption of a relation between reproductive expenditure and packaging of offspring was justified.<ref>Parry, G.D. (1981) ‘The Meanings of r- and K-selection’, Oecologia 48: 260–81.</ref> A 1982 study by Templeton and Johnson, showed that in a population of ''[[Drosophila mercatorum]]'' under K selection the population actually produced a higher frequency of traits typically associated with r selection.<ref>Templeton, A.R. and J.S. Johnson (1982) ‘Life History Evolution Under Pleiotropy and K-selection in a Natural Population of Drosophila mercatorum’, in J.S.F. Barker and W.T. Starmer (eds) Ecological Genetics and Evolution: The Cactus-Yeast-Drosophila System, pp. 225–39. Sydney: Academic Press.</ref> Several other studies contradicting the predictions of r/K selection theory were also published between 1977 and 1994.<ref>Terry W. Snell and Charles E. King 1977. Lifespan and Fecundity Patterns in Rotifers: The Cost of Reproduction. Evolution. Vol. 31, No. 4 (Dec., 1977), pp. 882-890</ref><ref>r- and K-Selection in Drosophila pseudoobscura Charles E. Taylor and Cindra Condra. Evolution. Vol. 34, No. 6 (Nov., 1980), pp. 1183-1193</ref><ref>H. Hollocher and A. R. 1994. The Molecular Through Ecological Genetics of abnormal abdomen in Drosophila mercatorum. VI. The Non-Neutrality of the Y Chromosome rDNA PolymorphismTempleton Genetics, Vol 136, 1373-1384</ref><ref>Templeton, A.R., H. Hollocher and J.S. Johnson (1993) ‘The Molecular Through Ecological Genetics of Abnormal Abdomen in Drosophila mercatorum. V. Female Phenotypic Expression on Natural Genetic Backgrounds and in Natural Environments’, Genetics 134: 475–85.</ref>
Although r/K selection theory became widely used during the 1970s,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Gadgil | first1 = M. | last2 = Solbrig | first2 = O.T. | year = 1972 | title = Concept of r-selection and K-selection evidence from wild flowers and some theoretical consideration | journal = Am. Nat. | volume = 106 | issue =947 | page = 14–31 |jstor=2459833}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Long | first1 = T. | last2 = Long | first2 = G. | year = 1974 | title = Effects of r-selection and K-selection on components of variance for 2 quantitative traits | journal = Genetics | volume = 76 | issue = 3| pages = 567–573 | pmid = 4208860 | pmc = 1213086 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Grahame | first1 = J. | year = 1977 | title = Reproductive effort and r-selection and K-selection in 2 species of ''Lacuna'' (Gastropoda-Prosobranchia) | journal = Mar. Biol. | volume = 40 | issue = 3| pages = 217–224 | doi = 10.1007/BF00390877 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Luckinbill | first1 = L.S. | year = 1978 | title = r and K selection in experimental populations of ''Escherichia coli'' | journal = Science | volume = 202 | issue = 4373| pages = 1201–1203 | doi = 10.1126/science.202.4373.1201 | pmid = 17735406 }}</ref> it also began to attract more critical attention.<ref name=wilbur74>{{cite journal | last=Wilbur | first=H.M. | year=1974 | title=Environmental certainty, trophic level, and resource availability in life history evolution | journal=American Naturalist | volume=108 | pages=805–816 | jstor=2459610 |last2=Tinkle |first=2D.W. |last3=Collins |first3=J.P. | issue=964 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Barbault | first1 = R. | year = 1987 | title = Are still r-selection and K-selection operative concepts? | journal = Acta Oecologica-Oecologia Generalis | volume = 8 | pages = 63–70 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kuno | first1 = E. | year = 1991 | title = Some strange properties of the logistic equation defined with r and K – inherent defects or artifacts | journal = Researches on Population Ecology | volume = 33 | pages = 33–39 | doi = 10.1007/BF02514572 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Getz | first1 = W.M. | year = 1993 | title = Metaphysiological and evolutionary dynamics of populations exploiting constant and interactive resources – r-K selection revisited | journal = Evolutionary Ecology | volume = 7 | issue = 3| pages = 287–305 | doi = 10.1007/BF01237746 }}</ref> In particular, an influential review by the ecologist [[Stephen C. Stearns]] drew attention to gaps in the theory, and to ambiguities in the interpretation of empirical data for testing it.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Stearns, S.C.|year=1977|title=Evolution of life-history traits – critique of theory and a review of data|journal=Ann. Rev. of Ecology and Systematics|volume=8|pages=145–171|url=http://faculty.washington.edu/kerrb/Stearns1977.pdf|format=PDF|doi=10.1146/annurev.es.08.110177.001045}}</ref> In 1981 a review of the r/K selection literature by Parry, demonstrated that there was no agreement among researchers using the theory about the definition of r and K selection, which led him to question whether the assumption of a relation between reproductive expenditure and packaging of offspring was justified.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Parry |first=G.D. |title=The Meanings of r- and K-selection |journal=Oecologia |volume=48 |issue=2 |pages=260–4 |year=March 1981 |doi=10.1007/BF00347974 |url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00347974}}</ref> A 1982 study by Templeton and Johnson, showed that in a population of ''[[Drosophila mercatorum]]'' under K selection the population actually produced a higher frequency of traits typically associated with r selection.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Templeton A.R. |first2=J.S. |last2=Johnson |chapter=Life History Evolution Under Pleiotropy and K-selection in a Natural Population of Drosophila mercatorum |pages=225–239 |editor1-first=J.S.F. |editor1-last=Barker |editor2-first=W.T. |editor2-last=Starmer |title=Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactus-yeast-drosophila model system |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=soDwAAAAMAAJ |year=1982 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-078820-0}}</ref> Several other studies contradicting the predictions of r/K selection theory were also published between 1977 and 1994.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Terry W. |last1=Snell |first2=Charles E. |last2=King |title=Lifespan and Fecundity Patterns in Rotifers: The Cost of Reproduction |journal=Evolution |volume=31 |issue=4 |pages=882–890 |date=December 1977 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first1=Charles E. |last1=Taylor |first2=Cindra |last2=Condra |title=r- and K-Selection in Drosophila pseudoobscura |journal=Evolution |volume=34 |issue=6 |pages=1183–93 |date=November 1980 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hollocher |first1=H. |last2=Templeton |first2=A.R. |title=The molecular through ecological genetics of abnormal abdomen in Drosophila mercatorum. VI. The non-neutrality of the Y chromosome rDNA polymorphism |journal=Genetics |volume=136 |issue=4 |pages=1373–84 |year=1994 |month=April |pmid=8013914 |pmc=1205918 |url=http://www.genetics.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=8013914}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Templeton |first1=A.R. |last2=Hollocher |first2=H. |last3=Johnston |first3=J.S. |title=The molecular through ecological genetics of abnormal abdomen in Drosophila mercatorum. V. Female phenotypic expression on natural genetic backgrounds and in natural environments |journal=Genetics |volume=134 |issue=2 |pages=475–85 |year=1993 |month=June |pmid=8325484 |pmc=1205491 |url=http://www.genetics.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=8325484}}</ref>


When Stearns reviewed the status of the theory in 1992<ref>{{cite book | title=The Evolution of Life Histories | last=Stearns | first=S.C. | year=1992 | publisher=Oxford University Press | isbn=978-0-19-857741-6 }}</ref> he noted that from 1977 to 1982 there was an average of 42 references to the theory per year in the BIOSIS literature search service, but from 1984 to 1989 the average dropped to 16 per year and continued to decline. He concluded that r/K theory was a once useful heuristic that no longer serves a purpose in life history theory.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Graves | first=J. L. | year=2002 | url=http://ant.sagepub.com/content/2/2/131.short | title=What a tangled web he weaves Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory | journal=Anthropological Theory | volume=2 | pages=2 131–154 | doi=10.1177/1469962002002002627 | issue=2 }}</ref>
When Stearns reviewed the status of the theory in 1992<ref>{{cite book | title=The Evolution of Life Histories | last=Stearns | first=S.C. | year=1992 | publisher=Oxford University Press | isbn=978-0-19-857741-6 }}</ref> he noted that from 1977 to 1982 there was an average of 42 references to the theory per year in the BIOSIS literature search service, but from 1984 to 1989 the average dropped to 16 per year and continued to decline. He concluded that r/K theory was a once useful heuristic that no longer serves a purpose in life history theory.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Graves | first=J. L. | year=2002 | url=http://ant.sagepub.com/content/2/2/131.short | title=What a tangled web he weaves Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory | journal=Anthropological Theory | volume=2 | pages=2 131–154 | doi=10.1177/1469962002002002627 | issue=2 }}</ref>

Revision as of 00:27, 14 October 2012


In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of combinations of traits in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring. The focus upon either increased quantity of offspring at the expense of individual parental investment, or reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment, varies widely, seemingly to promote success in particular environments. In this context, r-selection makes a species prone to numerous reproduction at low cost per an individual offspring, while K-selected species expend high cost in reproduction for a low number of more difficult to produce offspring. Neither mode of propagation is intrinsically superior, and in fact they can coexist in the same habitat, as in rodents and elephants.

The theory was popular in the 1970s and 1980s when it was used as a heuristic device, but lost importance in the early 1990s as it was criticized by several empirical studies.[1][2] The r/K selection paradigm has been replaced by a "life-history" paradigm. However, this continues to incorporate many of the themes important to the r/K paradigm.[3]

The terminology of r/K-selection was coined by the ecologists Robert MacArthur and E. O. Wilson[4] based on their work on island biogeography.[5]

Overview

In r/K selection theory, selective pressures are hypothesised to drive evolution in one of two generalized directions: r- or K-selection.[4] These terms, r and K, are drawn from standard ecological algebra, as illustrated in the simplified Verhulst model of population dynamics:[6]

where r is the maximum growth rate of the population (N), and K is the carrying capacity of its local environmental setting, d stands for derivative, and t for time (i.e. the equation describes the change in time of the population, N). As the name implies, r-selected species are those that place an emphasis on a high growth rate, and typically exploit less-crowded ecological niches and produce many offspring, each of which has a relatively low probability of surviving to adulthood (i.e. high r, low K). By contrast, K-selected species display traits associated with living at densities close to carrying capacity, and typically are strong competitors in such crowded niches that invest more heavily in fewer offspring, each of which has a relatively high probability of surviving to adulthood (i.e. low r, high K). In the scientific literature, r-selected species are occasionally referred to as "opportunistic", while K-selected species are described as "equilibrium".[7]

r-selection (unstable environments)

The frog Rana temporaria, an r-strategist

In unstable or unpredictable environments, r-selection predominates as the ability to reproduce quickly is crucial. There is little advantage in adaptations that permit successful competition with other organisms, because the environment is likely to change again. Traits that are thought to be characteristic of r-selection include: high fecundity, small body size, early maturity onset, short generation time, and the ability to disperse offspring widely.[citation needed]

Organisms whose life history is subject to r-selection are often referred to as r-strategists or r-selected. Organisms who exhibit r-selected traits can range from bacteria and diatoms, to insects and weeds, to various semelparous cephalopods and mammals, particularly small rodents.[citation needed]

K-selection (stable environments)

The chameleon Brookesia desperata, a K-strategist

In stable or predictable environments, K-selection predominates as the ability to compete successfully for limited resources is crucial and populations of K-selected organisms typically are very constant and close to the maximum that the environment can bear (unlike r-selected populations, where population sizes can change much more rapidly).[citation needed]

Traits that are thought to be characteristic of K-selection include: large body size, long life expectancy, and the production of fewer offspring, which require extensive parental care until they mature. Organisms whose life history is subject to K-selection are often referred to as K-strategists or K-selected. Organisms with K-selected traits include large organisms such as elephants, trees, humans and whales, but also smaller, long-lived organisms such as Arctic Terns.[8]

As a continuous spectrum

Although some organisms are identified as primarily r- or K-strategists, the majority of organisms do not follow this pattern. For instance, trees have traits such as longevity and strong competitiveness that characterise them as K-strategists. In reproduction, however, trees typically produce thousands of offspring and disperse them widely, traits characteristic of r-strategists. Similarly, reptiles such as sea turtles display both r- and K-traits: although sea turtles are large organisms with long lifespans (provided they reach adulthood), they produce large numbers of unnurtured offspring. Mammalian males tend to be r-type reproducers, whereas females tend to have K characteristics.[9]

In ecological succession

In areas of major ecological disruption or sterilisation (such as after a major volcanic eruption, as at Krakatoa or Mount Saint Helens), r- and K-strategists play distinct roles in the ecological succession that regenerates the ecosystem. Because of their higher reproductive rates and ecological opportunism, primary colonisers typically are r-strategists and they are followed by a succession of increasingly competitive flora and fauna. The ability of an environment to increase energetic content, through photosynthetic capture of solar energy, increases with the increase in complex biodiversity as r species proliferate to reach a peak possible with K strategies.[10]

Eventually a new equilibrium is approached (sometimes referred to as a climax community), with r-strategists gradually being replaced by K-strategists which are more competitive and better adapted to the emerging micro-environmental characteristics of the landscape. Traditionally, biodiversity was considered maximized at this stage, with introductions of new species resulting in the replacement and local extinction of endemic species.[11] However, the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis posits that intermediate levels of disturbance in a landscape create patches at different levels of succession, promoting coexistence of colonizers and competitors at the regional scale.[citation needed]

Status of the theory

Although r/K selection theory became widely used during the 1970s,[12][13][14][15] it also began to attract more critical attention.[16][17][18][19] In particular, an influential review by the ecologist Stephen C. Stearns drew attention to gaps in the theory, and to ambiguities in the interpretation of empirical data for testing it.[20] In 1981 a review of the r/K selection literature by Parry, demonstrated that there was no agreement among researchers using the theory about the definition of r and K selection, which led him to question whether the assumption of a relation between reproductive expenditure and packaging of offspring was justified.[21] A 1982 study by Templeton and Johnson, showed that in a population of Drosophila mercatorum under K selection the population actually produced a higher frequency of traits typically associated with r selection.[22] Several other studies contradicting the predictions of r/K selection theory were also published between 1977 and 1994.[23][24][25][26]

When Stearns reviewed the status of the theory in 1992[27] he noted that from 1977 to 1982 there was an average of 42 references to the theory per year in the BIOSIS literature search service, but from 1984 to 1989 the average dropped to 16 per year and continued to decline. He concluded that r/K theory was a once useful heuristic that no longer serves a purpose in life history theory.[28]

More recently, the "Panarchy" theories of adaptive capacity and resilience promoted by C. S. Holling and Lance Gunderson,[29] have revived interest in the theory, and use it as a way of integrating social systems, economics and ecology.[citation needed]

In 2002, Reznick and colleagues reviewed the controversy regarding r/K selection theory and wrote that: "The distinguishing feature of the r- and K-selection paradigm was the focus on density-dependent selection as the important agent of selection on organisms’ life histories. This paradigm was challenged as it became clear that other factors, such as age-specific mortality, could provide a more mechanistic causative link between an environment and an optimal life history (Wilbur et al. 1974; Stearns 1976, 1977). The r- and K-selection paradigm was replaced by new paradigm that focused on age-specific mortality (Stearns, 1976; Charlesworth, 1980). This new life-history paradigm has matured into one that uses age-structured models as a framework to incorporate many of the themes important to the r–K paradigm."[3]

See also

References

  1. ^ Roff, Derek A. (1993). Evolution Of Life Histories: Theory and Analysis. Springer. ISBN 978-0-412-02391-0.
  2. ^ Stearns, Stephen C. (1992). The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-857741-6.
  3. ^ a b Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1509:RAKSRT]2.0.CO;2, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1509:RAKSRT]2.0.CO;2 instead.
  4. ^ a b Pianka, E.R. (1970). "On r and K selection". American Naturalist. 104 (940): 592–597. doi:10.1086/282697.
  5. ^ MacArthur, R.; Wilson, E.O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography (2001 reprint ed.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-08836-5M. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  6. ^ Verhulst, P.F. (1838). "Notice sur la loi que la population pursuit dans son accroissement". Corresp. Math. Phys. 10: 113–121.
  7. ^ For example: Weinbauer, M.G. (1 October 1998). "Distribution and Life Strategies of Two Bacterial Populations in a Eutrophic Lake". Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64 (10): 3776–3783. PMC 106546. PMID 9758799. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ "r and K selection". University of Miami Department of Biology. Retrieved February 4, 2011.
  9. ^ Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer (2000), "Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species" (Ballantine Books)
  10. ^ Gunderson, Lance H.; Holling, C.S. (2001). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations In Human And Natural Systems. Island Press. ISBN 978-1-55963-857-9.
  11. ^ McNeely, J. A. (1994). "Lessons of the past: Forests and Biodiversity". Biodiversity and Conservation. 3: 3–20. doi:10.1007/BF00115329.
  12. ^ Gadgil, M.; Solbrig, O.T. (1972). "Concept of r-selection and K-selection — evidence from wild flowers and some theoretical consideration". Am. Nat. 106 (947): 14–31. JSTOR 2459833.
  13. ^ Long, T.; Long, G. (1974). "Effects of r-selection and K-selection on components of variance for 2 quantitative traits". Genetics. 76 (3): 567–573. PMC 1213086. PMID 4208860.
  14. ^ Grahame, J. (1977). "Reproductive effort and r-selection and K-selection in 2 species of Lacuna (Gastropoda-Prosobranchia)". Mar. Biol. 40 (3): 217–224. doi:10.1007/BF00390877.
  15. ^ Luckinbill, L.S. (1978). "r and K selection in experimental populations of Escherichia coli". Science. 202 (4373): 1201–1203. doi:10.1126/science.202.4373.1201. PMID 17735406.
  16. ^ Wilbur, 2D.W.; Tinkle; Collins, J.P. (1974). "Environmental certainty, trophic level, and resource availability in life history evolution". American Naturalist. 108 (964): 805–816. JSTOR 2459610.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  17. ^ Barbault, R. (1987). "Are still r-selection and K-selection operative concepts?". Acta Oecologica-Oecologia Generalis. 8: 63–70.
  18. ^ Kuno, E. (1991). "Some strange properties of the logistic equation defined with r and K – inherent defects or artifacts". Researches on Population Ecology. 33: 33–39. doi:10.1007/BF02514572.
  19. ^ Getz, W.M. (1993). "Metaphysiological and evolutionary dynamics of populations exploiting constant and interactive resources – r-K selection revisited". Evolutionary Ecology. 7 (3): 287–305. doi:10.1007/BF01237746.
  20. ^ Stearns, S.C. (1977). "Evolution of life-history traits – critique of theory and a review of data" (PDF). Ann. Rev. of Ecology and Systematics. 8: 145–171. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.08.110177.001045.
  21. ^ Parry, G.D. (March 1981). "The Meanings of r- and K-selection". Oecologia. 48 (2): 260–4. doi:10.1007/BF00347974.
  22. ^ Templeton A.R.; Johnson, J.S. (1982). "Life History Evolution Under Pleiotropy and K-selection in a Natural Population of Drosophila mercatorum". In Barker, J.S.F.; Starmer, W.T. (eds.). Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactus-yeast-drosophila model system. Academic Press. pp. 225–239. ISBN 978-0-12-078820-0.
  23. ^ Snell, Terry W.; King, Charles E. (December 1977). "Lifespan and Fecundity Patterns in Rotifers: The Cost of Reproduction". Evolution. 31 (4): 882–890.
  24. ^ Taylor, Charles E.; Condra, Cindra (November 1980). "r- and K-Selection in Drosophila pseudoobscura". Evolution. 34 (6): 1183–93.
  25. ^ Hollocher, H.; Templeton, A.R. (1994). "The molecular through ecological genetics of abnormal abdomen in Drosophila mercatorum. VI. The non-neutrality of the Y chromosome rDNA polymorphism". Genetics. 136 (4): 1373–84. PMC 1205918. PMID 8013914. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  26. ^ Templeton, A.R.; Hollocher, H.; Johnston, J.S. (1993). "The molecular through ecological genetics of abnormal abdomen in Drosophila mercatorum. V. Female phenotypic expression on natural genetic backgrounds and in natural environments". Genetics. 134 (2): 475–85. PMC 1205491. PMID 8325484. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  27. ^ Stearns, S.C. (1992). The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-857741-6.
  28. ^ Graves, J. L. (2002). "What a tangled web he weaves Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory". Anthropological Theory. 2 (2): 2 131–154. doi:10.1177/1469962002002002627.
  29. ^ Gunderson, L. H. and Holling C. S. (2001) "Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems", Island Press.