Pre-adult mortality: should we care about it, and what can we do about it?

IF 2.8 2区 生物学 Q2 BIOLOGY
Journal of Experimental Biology Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-27 DOI:10.1242/jeb.250399
Tony D Williams
{"title":"Pre-adult mortality: should we care about it, and what can we do about it?","authors":"Tony D Williams","doi":"10.1242/jeb.250399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a wide range of taxa, most individuals have zero fitness: they die before reproducing. In this Commentary, I first confirm that across taxa - from Drosophila to elephant seals to trees - pre-adult mortality is the norm, with ∼60-90% of offspring dying before reproduction. Two seemingly opposite, though not mutually exclusive, hypotheses explain who dies: (1) that this is simply due to stochastic events, a matter of chance or luck, or (2) that it involves selective disappearance, with the loss of low-quality individuals with specific phenotypic traits associated with low survival. I then review (a) what we know about (physiological) phenotypes early in development, at independence, (b) whether these might become fixed in early development, and (c) whether these traits are repeatable or labile during ontogeny, forming targets of selection determining fitness (cf. adult phenotype). I highlight four reasons to care about pre-adult mortality in current, experimental studies: (1) identifying the phenotypic traits (and physiology) determining life's winners and losers is a significant knowledge gap and worthy research goal; (2) it should matter if our study populations comprise a random sample of individuals (chance) or a 'biased' high-quality subset of individuals (selective disappearance); (3) we typically create conditions to minimize mortality in laboratory populations, but these are then totally different from natural populations (with high pre-reproductive mortality); and (4) if individuals that make it to reproduction are all high-quality individuals, the 'best of the best', this might explain the seeming absence of, or failure to detect, trade-offs and costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":15786,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Biology","volume":"228 13","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.250399","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a wide range of taxa, most individuals have zero fitness: they die before reproducing. In this Commentary, I first confirm that across taxa - from Drosophila to elephant seals to trees - pre-adult mortality is the norm, with ∼60-90% of offspring dying before reproduction. Two seemingly opposite, though not mutually exclusive, hypotheses explain who dies: (1) that this is simply due to stochastic events, a matter of chance or luck, or (2) that it involves selective disappearance, with the loss of low-quality individuals with specific phenotypic traits associated with low survival. I then review (a) what we know about (physiological) phenotypes early in development, at independence, (b) whether these might become fixed in early development, and (c) whether these traits are repeatable or labile during ontogeny, forming targets of selection determining fitness (cf. adult phenotype). I highlight four reasons to care about pre-adult mortality in current, experimental studies: (1) identifying the phenotypic traits (and physiology) determining life's winners and losers is a significant knowledge gap and worthy research goal; (2) it should matter if our study populations comprise a random sample of individuals (chance) or a 'biased' high-quality subset of individuals (selective disappearance); (3) we typically create conditions to minimize mortality in laboratory populations, but these are then totally different from natural populations (with high pre-reproductive mortality); and (4) if individuals that make it to reproduction are all high-quality individuals, the 'best of the best', this might explain the seeming absence of, or failure to detect, trade-offs and costs.

成年前死亡率:我们应该关心它吗?我们能做些什么?
在广泛的分类群中,大多数个体都是零适应性的:它们在繁殖之前就死亡了。在这篇评论中,我首先证实,从果蝇到海象再到树木,在整个分类群中,成年前死亡是常态,约60-90%的后代在繁殖前死亡。两种看似相反,但并非相互排斥的假设解释了谁会死亡:(1)这仅仅是由于随机事件,一个机会或运气的问题,或者(2)它涉及选择性消失,与低存活率相关的具有特定表型特征的低质量个体的丧失。然后,我回顾了(a)我们对发育早期(生理)表型的了解(b)这些特征是否可能在早期发育中变得固定,以及(c)这些特征在个体发育过程中是否可重复或不稳定,形成决定适应性的选择目标(参见成人表型)。我强调了在目前的实验研究中关注成年前死亡率的四个原因:(1)确定表型特征(和生理学)决定生命的赢家和输家是一个重要的知识差距和值得研究的目标;(2)我们的研究群体是由随机的个体样本(偶然性)还是有“偏倚”的高质量个体子集(选择性消失)组成,这应该很重要;(3)我们通常会创造条件,以尽量减少实验室种群的死亡率,但这些条件与自然种群(生殖前死亡率高)完全不同;(4)如果能够繁衍后代的个体都是高质量的个体,是“优等中的优等”,这或许可以解释为什么似乎没有或未能察觉到权衡和成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
10.70%
发文量
494
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Experimental Biology is the leading primary research journal in comparative physiology and publishes papers on the form and function of living organisms at all levels of biological organisation, from the molecular and subcellular to the integrated whole animal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信