The Evolution of Parental Care

Our understanding of parental care behavior can be significantly advanced through the application of Williams’s Principle, which states that reproduction has not only a benefit but also a cost to lifetime fitness. My laboratory has formalized Williams’s Principle into the relative value theorem and found that its application to fishes, the taxa with the most diverse patterns of parental care, can help to explain which sex provides care and how much. In fishes, it is often the male that provides parental care, not because the male obtains greater benefits from this care, but probably because he pays fewer costs. Fish dynamically adjust their investment into parental care according to the number of offspring in their brood, past investment, genetic relatedness, and alternative mating opportunities, all of which affect the value of current offspring relative to potential future offspring. These results may also help us understand the joy and the challenges of parental care in humans.

[1]  George C. Williams,et al.  Natural Selection, the Costs of Reproduction, and a Refinement of Lack's Principle , 1966, The American Naturalist.

[2]  G. Williams.  Adaptation and Natural Selection. (Book Reviews: Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought) , 2018 .

[3]  R. Trivers.  Parental investment and sexual selection , 1972 .

[4]  J. Alcock.  Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach , 1975 .

[5]  R. Dawkins,et al.  Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy , 1976, Nature.

[6]  J. M. Smith.  Parental investment: A prospective analysis , 1977, Animal Behaviour.

[7]  Bobbi S. Low,et al.  Environmental Uncertainty and the Parental Strategies of Marsupials and Placentals , 1978, The American Naturalist.

[8]  M. Gross.  Cuckoldry in sunfishes (Lepomis: Centrarchidae) , 1979 .

[9]  R. Shine,et al.  Paternity and the evolution of male parental care. , 1980, Journal of theoretical biology.

[10]  R. Shine,et al.  PARENTAL CARE AND MODE OF FERTILIZATION IN ECTOTHERMIC VERTEBRATES , 1981, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  P. H. Pressley.  PARENTAL EFFORT AND THE EVOLUTION OF NEST‐GUARDING TACTICS IN THE THREESPINE STICKLEBACK, GASTEROSTEUS ACULEATUS L. , 1981, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[12]  T. R. Carlisle.  Brood success in variable environments: Implications for parental care allocation , 1982, Animal Behaviour.

[13]  E. Charnov.  The theory of sex allocation. , 1984, Monographs in population biology.

[14]  T. Fagerström.  Maternal Investment, Female Rivalry, and a Fallacy , 1982 .

[15]  M. Keenleyside.  Mate desertion in relation to adult sex ratio in the biparental cichlid fish Herotilapia multispinosa , 1983, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  M. Gross,et al.  The evolution of male and female parental care in fishes , 1985 .

[17]  M. Gross,et al.  Williams’ Principle: An Explanation of Parental Care in Teleost Fishes , 1986 .

[18]  Animal decision-making and the 'Concorde fallacy'. , 1987, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[19]  M. Gross,et al.  NATURAL SELECTION RESULTING FROM FEMALE BREEDING COMPETITION IN A PACIFIC SALMON (COHO: ONCORHYNCHUS KISUTCH) , 1989, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[20]  C. M. Lessells,et al.  The Evolution of Life Histories , 1994 .

[21]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  The Evolution of Parental Care , 2019 .

[22]  R. M. Coleman,et al.  Parental investment theory: The role of past investment. , 1991, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[23]  S. Stearns,et al.  The Evolution of Life Histories , 1992 .

[24]  R. M. Coleman,et al.  Do parental convict cichlids of different sizes value the same brood number equally? , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[25]  D. Earn,et al.  On the evolutionary pathway of parental care in mouth–brooding cichlid fishes , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[26]  Robin I. M. Dunbar,et al.  Abortion rates reflect the optimization of parental investment strategies , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  J. Simpson,et al.  The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[28]  D. Roff.  Life History, Evolution of , 2001 .

[29]  B. Neff,et al.  Dynamic adjustment of parental care in response to perceived paternity , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  J. Ringo.  Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach.Seventh Edition. ByJohn Alcock. Sunderland (Massachusetts): Sinauer Associates. $76.95. xiv + 543 p; ill.; index. ISBN: 0–87893–011–6. 2001. , 2002 .

[31]  A. Grant,et al.  Life History Evolution , 2002, Heredity.

[32]  Conflict and cooperation in parental care - Introduction , 2002 .

[33]  R. Freckleton,et al.  Evolutionary transitions in parental care and live bearing in vertebrates. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[34]  T. Amundsen.  Fishes as models in studies of sexual selection and parental care , 2003 .

[35]  B. Neff.  Decisions about parental care in response to perceived paternity , 2003, Nature.

[36]  R. M. Coleman,et al.  Parental investment decision rules: a test in bluegill sunfish , 1985, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[37]  M. Gross,et al.  Parental investment decision rules and the Concorde fallacy , 1985, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[38]  James L. Beck,et al.  Introduction , 2006, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastructure Eng..