Abstract

Nee et al. (Reports, 19 August 2005, p. 1236) used a null model to argue that life history invariants are illusions. We show that their results are largely inconsequential for life history theory because the authors confound two definitions of invariance, and rigorous analysis of their null model demonstrates that it does not match observed data.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call