Offspring age (mean 14.9 days±8.8 s.d., minimum 5, maximum 42) was positively correlated with non-specific ROS level (r=0.50, p=0.035, n=16), but not with corresponding estimates of superoxide (r=−0.21, p>0.41). Non-specific ROS levels differed between adult females and juveniles (1.10±0.16 s.e. versus −0.48±0.11 s.e., in adults versus juveniles, respectively; t-test; t=8.16, p<0.00001, d.f.=32). The corresponding t-tests for superoxide with and without CCCP treatment showed corresponding differences (mean superoxide for hatchlings versus mothers, 11.6±0.64 s.e., n=47 and 14.5±1.15 s.e., respectively; t=2.31, d.f.=30.8 (Satterthwaites' approximation), p=0.024; mean superoxide+CCCP, 25.2±0.86 s.e., and 29.3±1.59, respectively; t=2.48, d.f.=30.8, p=0.016).
The heritability of non-specific ROS did not differ significantly from zero (F1,15=0.03, p=0.88). The parent–offspring regression of basal superoxide level was statistically significant (F1,14=8.3, p=0.012, R2=0.37, estimated heritability=0.45±0.16 s.e.), and even more pronounced subsequent to mitochondrial uncoupling by CCCP (F1,14=13.1, p=0.003, R2=0.48; estimated heritability=0.54±0.15). We then subtracted basal superoxide level from induced level to specifically isolate the effects of mitochondrial uncoupling for analysis. This revealed an even higher heritability (; F1,14=33.6, p<0.0001, R2=0.71; estimated heritability=0.82±0.14 s.e.).
Our full-sib analysis showed that, when we removed the variance from offspring age and date of measurement on ROS levels, all three of our ROS estimates showed significant family effects (non-specific ROS: h2=0.49, LR=5.1, d.f.=1, p<0.025; superoxide: h2=0.55, LR=6.3, d.f.=1, p<0.025; superoxide at CCCP treatment: h2=0.73, LR=9.7, d.f.=1, p<0.005).
The results of our allometric engineering experiment showed no effect of yolk manipulation on the levels of offspring superoxide (F1,15=0.01, p=0.91), whereas the effect of maternal identity was significant (likelihood ratio test: LR=5.5, p=0.019). The corresponding treatment effect on non-specific ROS showed a similar pattern (treatment F1,15=1.81, p=0.20; maternal identity LR=3.9, p=0.048). Thus, our manipulation of yolk level shows no effect on the levels of offspring ROS and, hence, variation in maternal yolk investment cannot explain any covariation between maternal and offspring ROS.