The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolutionary Ecology of Progeny Size in Arthropods
Abstract
▪ Abstract Most models of optimal progeny size assume that there is a trade-off between progeny size and number, and that progeny fitness increases with increasing investment per young. We find that both assumptions are supported by empirical studies but that the trade-off is less apparent when organisms are iteroparous, use adult-acquired resources for reproduction, or provide parental care. We then review patterns of variation in progeny size among species, among populations within species, among individuals within populations, and among progeny produced by a single female. We argue that much of the variation in progeny size among species, and among populations within species, is likely due to variation in natural selection. However, few studies have manipulated progeny environments and demonstrated that the relationship between progeny size and fitness actually differs among environments, and fewer still have demonstrated why selection favors different sized progeny in different environments. We argue that much of the variation in progeny size among females within populations, and among progeny produced by a single female, is probably nonadaptive. However, some species of arthropods exhibit plasticity in progeny size in response to several environmental factors, and much of this plasticity is likely adaptive. We conclude that advances in theory have substantially outpaced empirical data. We hope that this review will stimulate researchers to examine the specific factors that result in variation in selection on progeny size within and among populations, and how this variation in selection influences the evolution of the patterns we observe.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies
VAHED, K. (1998) · Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · doi:10.1017/s0006323197005112 · Cited by 457
CLUTCH SIZE AND EGG SIZE IN FREE-LIVING AND PARASITIC COPEPODS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Poulin, R. (1995) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1995.tb02245.x · Cited by 122
Dangerfield, J. M., & Telford, S. R. (1990) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/bf00323542 · Cited by 45
Cited by
When is a maternal effect adaptive?
J. Marshall, D., & Uller, T. (2007) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16203.x · Cited by 855
Nongenetic Inheritance and Its Evolutionary Implications
Bonduriansky, R., & Day, T. (2009) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173441 · Cited by 698
Constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity: limits and costs of phenotype and plasticity
Murren, C. J., Auld, J. R., Callahan, H., Ghalambor, C. K., Handelsman, C. A., Heskel, M. A., Kingsolver, J. G., Maclean, H. J., Masel, J., Maughan, H., et al. (2015) · Heredity · doi:10.1038/hdy.2015.8 · Cited by 686
Egg size and offspring quality: a meta‐analysis in birds
Krist, M. (2011) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00166.x · Cited by 472
What is Phenotypic Plasticity and Why is it Important?
Whitman, D., & Agrawal, A. (2009) · Phenotypic Plasticity of Insects · doi:10.1201/b10201-2 · Cited by 416
Metadata
- Authors
- Fox, C. W., & Czesak, M. E.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Entomology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 341-369
- ISSN
- 0066-4170 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-4487
- OpenAlex
- W2097383909
- Cited by
- 809
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 3.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evolutionary Ecology of Progeny Size in Arthropods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.341
- The paper
- Fox, C. W., & Czesak, M. E. (2000). Evolutionary Ecology of Progeny Size in Arthropods. Annual Review of Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.341
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.