title: A measure for describing and comparing post-reproductive lifespan as a population trait.
abstract: 1. While-classical life-history theory does not predict post-reproductive lifespan (PRLS), it has been detected in a great number of taxa, leading to the view that it is a broadly conserved trait, and attempts to reconcile theory with these observations. We suggest an alternative: the apparently wide distribution of significant PRLS is an artifact of insufficient methods.2. PRLS is traditionally measured in units of time between each individual's last parturition and death, after excluding those individuals for whom this interval is short. A mean of this measure is then calculated as a population value. We show this traditional population measure (which we denote PrT) to be inconsistently calculated, inherently biased, strongly correlated with overall longevity, uninformative on the importance of PRLS in a population's life-history, unable to use the most-commonly available form of relevant data and without a realistic null hypothesis. Using data altered to ensure that the null hypothesis is true, we find a false positive rate of 0.47 for PrT.3. We propose an alternative population measure, using life-table methods. Post-reproductive Representation (PrR) is the proportion of adult years lived which are post-reproductive. We briefly derive PrR and discuss its properties. We employ a demographic simulation, based on the null hypothesis of simultaneous and proportional decline in survivorship and fecundity, to produce a null distribution for PrR based on the age-specific rates of a population.4. In an example analysis, using data on 84 populations of human and non-human primates, we demonstrate the ability of PrR to represent the effects of artificial protection from mortality and of humanness on PRLS. PrR is found to be higher for all human populations under a wide range of conditions than for any non-human primate in our sample. A strong effect of artificial protection is found, but humans under the most-adverse conditions still achieve PrR of >0.3.5. PrT should not be used as a population measure, and should be used as an individual measure only with great caution. The use of PrR as an intuitive, statistically valid and intercomparable population life-history measure is encouraged.
authors.affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Laboratory of Evolutionary Biodemography, Konrad-Zuse Strasse 1, 18057 Rostock Germany.
authors.forename: Daniel A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Levitis
authors.forename: Laurie Bingaman
authors.initials: LB
authors.lastname: Lackey
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004 Nov;79(4):733-50
references.pmid: 15682868
references.citation: PLoS One. 2007;2(12):e1286
references.pmid: 22423309
references.citation: Nature. 2004 Mar 11;428(6979):178-81
references.pmid: 15014499
references.citation: Lancet. 1996 Oct 26;348(9035):1152-3
references.pmid: 8888172
references.citation: Am J Hum Biol. 2002 Mar-Apr;14(2):184-205
references.pmid: 11891933
references.citation: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007 Feb;62(2):126-35
references.pmid: 17339638
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 May 20;105(20):7124-8
references.pmid: 18458325
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Feb 3;95(3):1336-9
references.pmid: 9448332
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Dec 22;277(1701):3765-71
references.pmid: 20591868
references.citation: Am Nat. 2010 Aug;176(2):159-69
references.pmid: 20536363
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 1966 Sep;12(1):12-45
references.pmid: 6015424
references.citation: Am J Phys Anthropol. 1999 Aug;109(4):455-64
references.pmid: 10423262
references.citation: Front Zool. 2009 Feb 03;6:4
references.pmid: 19192288
references.citation: Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Jun;55(6 Suppl):1191S-1195S
references.pmid: 1590255
references.citation: Biol Lett. 2008 Apr 23;4(2):189-91
references.pmid: 18252662
references.citation: PLoS One. 2007 Aug 29;2(8):e785
references.pmid: 17726515
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Feb 7;278(1704):384-91
references.pmid: 20739319
references.citation: Hum Nat. 1991 Dec;2(4):313-50
references.pmid: 24222339
references.citation: Genetics. 2000 Nov;156(3):927-31
references.pmid: 11063673
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Dec;20(12):650
references.pmid: 16701451
references.citation: PLoS Biol. 2006 Jan;4(1):e7
references.pmid: 16363919
references.citation: Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 Jun;136(2):194-203
references.pmid: 18322919
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Apr 8;105(14):5332-6
references.pmid: 18378891
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jan 11;102(2):402-6
references.pmid: 15625107
references.citation: Am J Hum Biol. 2009 Jul-Aug;21(4):578-86
references.pmid: 19213006
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Aug;1204:21-9
references.pmid: 20738272
references.citation: Popul Stud (Camb). 2000 Jul;54(2):169-76
references.pmid: 11624633
references.citation: Am J Phys Anthropol. 2000 Nov;113(3):435-50
references.pmid: 11042542