Publication Date:
2006-04-15
Description:
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.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Notes: 〈/span〉Savage, Van M -- White, Ethan P -- Moses, Melanie E -- Ernest, S K Morgan -- Enquist, Brian J -- Charnov, Eric L -- New York, N.Y. -- Science. 2006 Apr 14;312(5771):198; author reply 198.〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Author address: 〈/span〉Bauer Center for Genomics Research, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. vsavage@cgr.harvard.edu〈br /〉〈span class="detail_caption"〉Record origin:〈/span〉 〈a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16614200" target="_blank"〉PubMed〈/a〉
Keywords:
Analysis of Variance
;
Animals
;
*Biological Evolution
;
Body Size
;
*Body Weight
;
Clutch Size
;
*Growth
;
Longevity
;
Mathematics
;
*Models, Biological
;
Regression Analysis
;
*Reproduction
;
Sexual Maturation
Print ISSN:
0036-8075
Electronic ISSN:
1095-9203
Topics:
Biology
,
Chemistry and Pharmacology
,
Computer Science
,
Medicine
,
Natural Sciences in General
,
Physics
Permalink
