Avoiding growing pains in reproductive trait databases: the curse of dimensionality

Abstract

AbstractAimReproductive output features prominently in many trait databases, but the metrics describing it vary and are often untethered to temporal and volumetric dimensions (e.g., fecundity per bout). The use of such ambiguous reproductive measures to make broad‐scale comparisons across taxonomic groups will be meaningful only if they show a 1:1 relationship with a reproductive measure that explicitly includes both a volumetric and a temporal component (i.e., reproductive mass per year). We sought to map the prevalence of ambiguous and explicit reproductive measures across taxa and to explore their relationships with one another to determine the cross‐compatibility and utility of reproductive metrics in trait databases.LocationGlobal.Time period1990–2021.Major taxa studiedWe searched for reproductive measures across all Metazoa and identified 19,785 vertebrate species (Chordata), and 440 invertebrate species (Arthropoda, Cnidaria or Mollusca).MethodsWe included 37 databases, from which we summarized the commonality of reproductive metrics across taxonomic groups. We also quantified scaling relationships between ambiguous reproductive traits (fecundity per bout, fecundity per year and reproductive mass per bout) and an explicit measure (reproductive mass per year) to assess their cross‐compatibility.ResultsMost species were missing at least one temporal or volumetric dimension of reproductive output, such that reproductive mass per year could be reconstructed for only 4,786 vertebrate species. Ambiguous reproductive measures were poor predictors of reproductive mass per year; in no instance did these measures scale at 1:1.Main conclusionsAmbiguous measures systematically misestimate reproductive mass per year. Until more data are collected, we suggest that researchers should use the clade‐specific scaling relationships provided here to convert ambiguous reproductive measures to reproductive mass per year.