One of the costs associated with investment into current reproduction is decelerated somatic growth, which reduces future reproductive output (Roff 1983; Lester et al. 2004).
Our study may therefore represent an early snapshot of divergence in reproductively important features that could facilitate the formation of future reproductive barriers among populations under some circumstances.
Costs of reproduction denotes the investment to reproduce at the expense of future reproductive potential by either increased mortality or reduced fecundity [6], [7].
Accordingly, sex-specific investment in reproduction when faced with resource challenges and the resulting influence on future reproductive potential via reduced lifespan can be used to predict the nature and direction of sexual selection in a mating system.
This is laissez-faire genetic and reproductive technology pushed almost to the limit, with even a hint that in the future reproductive cloning might be acceptable.
Thus, gay, lesbian or childless heterosexuals can increase their own reproductive fitness by behaving altruistically towards their nieces and nephews – in other words by helping to ensure their survival and future reproductive success.
Use your own judgment, but queries about future reproductive plans are clearly inappropriate and deserve a similar response.
Indirect costs included future milk production loss ($125), premature culling and replacement loss ($182), and future reproductive loss ($9).
Parental investment choices involve balancing current and future reproductive opportunities, and allocating resources among young within a group of siblings.
Time spent looking after offspring is costly for parents because it means less courting and mating, thereby reducing future reproductive success.
For example, Danish research found women who took painkillers were more likely to have boys born with undescended testes - this can sometimes lead to future reproductive troubles.
