Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of procbThe Royal Society PublishingProceedings BAboutBrowse by SubjectAlertsFree Trial
Proc Biol Sci. 2004 February 7; 271(1536): 259–266.
PMCID: PMC1691593

Adaptive variation in senescence: reproductive lifespan in a wild salmon population.


The antagonistic pleiotropy theory of senescence postulates genes or traits that have opposite effects on early-life and late-life performances. Because selection is generally weaker late in life, genes or traits that improve early-life performance but impair late-life performance should come to predominate. Variation in the strength of age-specific selection should then generate adaptive variation in senescence. We demonstrate this mechanism by comparing early and late breeders within a population of semelparous capital-breeding sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). We show that early breeders (but not late breeders) are under strong selection for a long reproductive lifespan (RLS), which facilitates defence of their nests against disturbance by later females. Accordingly, early females invest less energy in egg production while reserving more for nest defence. Variation along this reproductive trade-off causes delayed or slower senescence in early females (average RLS of 26 days) than in late females (reproductive lifespan of 12 days). We use microsatellites to confirm that gene flow is sufficiently limited between early and late breeders to allow adaptive divergence in response to selection. Because reproductive trade-offs should be almost universal and selection acting on them should typically vary in time and space, the mechanism described herein may explain much of the natural variation in senescence.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (630K).

Supplementary Material

Supplementary data file:

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Beerli P, Felsenstein J. Maximum-likelihood estimation of migration rates and effective population numbers in two populations using a coalescent approach. Genetics. 1999 Jun;152(2):763–773. [PubMed]
  • Hamilton WD. The moulding of senescence by natural selection. J Theor Biol. 1966 Sep;12(1):12–45. [PubMed]
  • Hendry AP, Day T, Taylor EB. Population mixing and the adaptive divergence of quantitative traits in discrete populations: a theoretical framework for empirical tests. Evolution. 2001 Mar;55(3):459–466. [PubMed]
  • Kirkwood TB, Austad SN. Why do we age? Nature. 2000 Nov 9;408(6809):233–238. [PubMed]
  • Morbey Yolanda E, Ydenberg Ronald C. Timing games in the reproductive phenology of female pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). Am Nat. 2003 Feb;161(2):284–298. [PubMed]
  • Partridge Linda, Gems David. Mechanisms of ageing: public or private? Nat Rev Genet. 2002 Mar;3(3):165–175. [PubMed]
  • Price T, Kirkpatrick M, Arnold SJ. Directional selection and the evolution of breeding date in birds. Science. 1988 May 6;240(4853):798–799. [PubMed]
  • Quinn TP, Unwin MJ, Kinnison MT. Evolution of temporal isolation in the wild: genetic divergence in timing of migration and breeding by introduced chinook salmon populations. Evolution. 2000 Aug;54(4):1372–1385. [PubMed]
  • Reznick David, Ghalambor Cameron, Nunney Leonard. The evolution of senescence in fish. Mech Ageing Dev. 2002 Apr;123(7):773–789. [PubMed]
  • Williams Paul D, Day Troy. Antagonistic pleiotropy, mortality source interactions, and the evolutionary theory of senescence. Evolution. 2003 Jul;57(7):1478–1488. [PubMed]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society