Abstract
Recently, Zammuto (R. M. Zammuto. 1986. Can. J. Zool. 64: 2739–2749) suggested that North American game birds exhibited survival–fecundity trade-offs consistent with the "cost of reproduction" hypothesis. However, there were four serious problems with the data and the analyses that Zammuto used: (i) the species chosen for analysis ("game birds") showed little taxonomic or ecological uniformity, (ii) the measures of future reproductive value (maximum longevity) were severely biased by unequal sample sizes of band recoveries, (iii) the measures of current reproductive effort (clutch sizes) were inappropriate given that most of the birds analyzed produce self-feeding precocial offspring, and (iv) the statistical units used in the majority of analyses (species) were not statistically independent with respect to higher level taxonomy. After correcting these problems, I found little evidence of survival–fecundity trade-offs among precocial game birds, and I attribute most of the explainable variation in life-history traits of these birds to allometry, phylogeny, and geography.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
