Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 12, Issue 8, pp 935–944 | Cite as

The evolution of body size in birds. II. The role of reproductive power

  • Brian a. Maurer


Given that body mass evolves non-randomly in birds, it is important to ask what factors might be responsible. One suggestion is that the rate at which individuals turn resources into offspring, termed ‘reproductive power’, might explain this non-randomness. This is because, in mammals, the body mass with the highest reproductive power is the most common (modal) one. Reproductive power was estimated for birds from data on energetic content of eggs and population productivity. According to the formulation of Brown et al. (1993), reproductive power is composed of two component processes: acquisition (acquiring resources and storing them in reproductive biomass) and conversion (converting reproductive biomass into offspring). As with mammals, estimates of reproductive power indicate that the most common body mass in birds is also the body mass that maximizes reproductive power. The relationship between reproductive power and diversity is different for species smaller than this modal body mass when compared to those that are larger. The relationship of body mass and reproductive power is different between birds and mammals in two ways: (1) the body mass that maximizes reproductive power is smaller in birds (33g) than in mammals (100g), and (2) mammals generate more reproductive power than an equivalent-sized bird. Reproductive power is determined primarily by acquisition in small birds and mammals, while it is determined by conversion in the largest birds and mammals. It is likely that reproductive power is closely tied to the evolution and diversification of body masses because it constrains the ways in which traits affecting fitness can evolve.

allometric scaling Aves energetics of evolution life history natural selection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bonner, J.T. (1988) The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural Selection. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J.H. (1995) Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J.H., Marquet, P.A. and Taper, M.L. (1993) Evolution of body size: Consequences of an energetic definition of fitness. Am. Nat. 142, 573–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, J.H., Marquet, P.A. and Taper, M.L. (1996) Darwinian fitness and reproductive power: Reply to Kozłowski. Am. Nat. 147, 1092–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calder, W.A., III. (1984) Size, Function, and Life History. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Charnov, E.L. (1993) Life History Invariants. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Farlow, J.O. (1976) A consideration of the trophic dynamics of a late Cretaceous large-dinosaur community (Oldman Formation). Ecology 57, 841–857.Google Scholar
  8. Gould, S.J. (1997) Cope's rule as a psychological artefact. Nature 385, 199–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kozłowski, J. (1996) Energetic definition of fitness? Yes, but not that one. Am. Nat. 147, 1087–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kozłowski, J. and Weiner, J. (1997) Interspecific allometries are by-products of body size optimization. Am. Nat. 149, 352–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maurer, B.A. (1998) The evolution of body size in birds. I. Evidence for non-random diversification. Evol. Ecol. 12, 925–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maurer, B.A. and Brown, J.H. (1988) Distribution of energy use and body mass among species of North American terrestrial birds. Ecology 69, 1923–1932.Google Scholar
  13. Maurer, B.A., Brown, J.H. and Rusler, R.D. (1992) The micro and macro in body size evolution. Evolution 46, 939–953.Google Scholar
  14. Nowak, R.M. (1991) Walker's Mammals of the World. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  15. Peters, R.H. (1983) The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Ricklefs, R.E. (1974) Energetics of reproduction in birds. In Avian Energetics (R.A. Paynter, ed.), pp. 152–297. Nuttall Ornithological Club, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Roff, D.A. (1992) The Evolution of Life Histories. Chapman & Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Sibley, C.G. and Monroe, B.L., Jr. (1990) Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  19. Stearns, S.C. (1992) The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 944 MaurerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian a. Maurer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations