Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2022 Jan 4;20(1):e3001495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001495

Terrestrial reproduction and parental care drive rapid evolution in the trade-off between offspring size and number across amphibians

Andrew I Furness 1,2,*, Chris Venditti 3, Isabella Capellini 4,*
Editor: Michael D Jennions5
PMCID: PMC8726499  PMID: 34982764

Abstract

The trade-off between offspring size and number is central to life history strategies. Both the evolutionary gain of parental care or more favorable habitats for offspring development are predicted to result in fewer, larger offspring. However, despite much research, it remains unclear whether and how different forms of care and habitats drive the evolution of the trade-off. Using data for over 800 amphibian species, we demonstrate that, after controlling for allometry, amphibians with direct development and those that lay eggs in terrestrial environments have larger eggs and smaller clutches, while different care behaviors and adaptations vary in their effects on the trade-off. Specifically, among the 11 care forms we considered at the egg, tadpole and juvenile stage, egg brooding, male egg attendance, and female egg attendance increase egg size; female tadpole attendance and tadpole feeding decrease egg size, while egg brooding, tadpole feeding, male tadpole attendance, and male tadpole transport decrease clutch size. Unlike egg size that shows exceptionally high rates of phenotypic change in just 19 branches of the amphibian phylogeny, clutch size has evolved at exceptionally high rates in 135 branches, indicating episodes of strong selection; egg and tadpole environment, direct development, egg brooding, tadpole feeding, male tadpole attendance, and tadpole transport explain 80% of these events. By explicitly considering diversity in parental care and offspring habitat by stage of offspring development, this study demonstrates that more favorable conditions for offspring development promote the evolution of larger offspring in smaller broods and reveals that the diversity of parental care forms influences the trade-off in more nuanced ways than previously appreciated.


What selective pressures alter the tradeoff between offspring size and number? A phylogenetic comparative approach shows that amphibians with direct development and those that lay eggs in terrestrial environments have larger eggs and smaller clutches, while different care behaviours and adaptations vary in their effects on the tradeoff.

Introduction

Life history theory [1,2] aims to explain how diverse life history strategies evolve under natural selection. Central to the theory are trade-offs that optimize resource allocation to the competing demands of growth, reproduction, and self-maintenance, under the assumption that individual resources are finite. A key life history trade-off is between the number and size of offspring produced in a given reproductive attempt [3,4]. In many species, larger offspring are of greater quality and enjoy higher survival [5,6]. However, producing larger offspring comes at the cost of having fewer of them [1,2], a theoretical prediction repeatedly supported in many animal and plant species and populations [5,7,8]. Surprisingly, despite much research, it is still unclear whether and how selective pressures related to environmental conditions and type of parental care drive evolutionary changes in the offspring size–number trade-off [920]. Answering this question is fundamental not only for advancing theory, but also because these life history traits influence the demographic trajectory of natural and introduced populations [2125] and their ability to overcome many anthropogenic stressors [24,2628]. For example, in several taxa, fecundity influences extinction risk [27,29], population growth rate [30], invasion success [21,22], and the ability to thrive in urban, or more generally human-modified, habitats [26,28]. Here, we test hypotheses predicting that parental care or terrestrial habitats in which offspring develop alter the offspring size–number trade-off, specifically leading to smaller clutches of larger eggs, in a sample of over 800 amphibian species. Importantly, selection is expected to increase rates of phenotypic evolution on target traits [3136]. Therefore, we expect that egg and clutch size exhibit higher phenotypic change when under selection imposed by parental care and offspring habitat. To test these predictions, we employ cutting edge Bayesian phylogenetic comparative methods [31,37] that quantify the strength and direction of associations of parental care and offspring habitat with the trade-off and simultaneously identify heterogeneity in rates of phenotypic evolution. By testing whether higher rates of evolution in egg or clutch size are explained by parental care diversity and offspring habitat, our approach allows us to get closer to causation at a large comparative scale than what is possible with standard phylogenetic comparative methods. Finally, unlike most previous studies, we treat individual care behaviors and adaptations by each parental sex as separate drivers rather than clumping them together, since they likely entail different costs and benefits to the carer(s), are likely favored under diverse ecological conditions, and may thus influence the trade-off differently. Combined, our analyses provide a powerful and comprehensive test of the hypotheses that parental care diversity and offspring habitat are responsible for evolutionary changes in egg and clutch size.

Natural selection should favor the evolution of larger eggs when environmental conditions are favorable and offspring survival is high. Specifically, theoretical models and empirical studies find that females invest in larger offspring when predation on offspring is low, or in stable, competitive environments [18,3841]. Terrestrial habitats may promote the evolution of larger eggs in amphibians through different mechanisms. Since eggs are eaten by many vertebrate and invertebrate species in aquatic habitats, laying eggs on land has long been viewed as an adaptation that minimizes egg predation and could in turn promote the evolution of larger eggs (fish: [42]; amphibians: [39,4345]). Moreover, larger eggs in terrestrial habitats experience lower water loss, hence risk of desiccation, having a more favorable volume to surface ratio than smaller ones [46,47].

Parental care is also considered a possible driver for the evolution of larger offspring. Specifically, theoretical models suggest that parental care may evolve to buffer the offspring against unfavorable environmental conditions when offspring mortality is high or in favorable but ephemeral habitats [13,4853]. Subsequently, higher offspring survival should promote additional parental investment, such as in larger eggs [13,52,53]. This is because, while larger eggs take longer to hatch and thus require prolonged parental protection, they are of higher fitness value to parents as they result in larger larvae or juveniles that suffer low mortality and reach sexual maturity early [20].

Offspring number rather than offspring size may, however, be the target of selection. Environmental conditions can drive brood size evolution [19,27] since they determine the mortality risks on eggs and young, for example, due to predation, desiccation, thermoregulation, or oxygen availability [17,20,54,55], and the amount of resources available to females for provisioning their eggs and young posthatching/birth in caring species [17]. Discovering which trait in the trade-off is under selection is thus not trivial because reasons as to why females should invest in larger or in more offspring may differ and a change in one of the traits in the trade-off does not always lead to a proportional change in the other. For example, mammals with biparental care are more fecund, but neonatal size does not differ in species with biparental or uniparental care, suggesting that biparental care has evolved to enhance parental, rather than offspring, fitness [56]. Similarly, selection in reef fishes has acted differently on egg size and clutch size [18]. Specifically, demersal guarded eggs are larger than pelagic and scattered eggs as predicted by theoretical models of parental care evolution [13,52,53], while clutches are bigger in larger species, likely reflecting fecundity selection [19,27], but clutch size is unrelated to egg size. To identify whether selection by a proposed driver alters offspring size and/or offspring number, both elements of the trade-off, needs to be considered.

Comparative studies on the relative importance of the drivers of offspring size and number reach different conclusions. For example, some found that eggs are larger in caring than noncaring fish species [11,13,20], but egg size is unrelated to parental care in insects [9] and neonatal size is unrelated to any male care behaviors in mammals [56]. Likewise, studies in amphibians disagree on whether care, terrestrial egg development, or neither is associated with larger eggs or smaller clutches [10,12,1416]. Many previous comparative studies have focused only on offspring size and care, or offspring number and environmental conditions, and ignored one or more of the following factors that may covary with them: the trade-off between offspring size and number as discussed above, the stage of development (egg, larvae, or juvenile) at which the offspring are terrestrial (offspring habitat) and/or are cared for, the diversity in parental care strategies, and allometry (S1 Table). Specifically, offspring size may change not because directly under selection but when selection alters offspring number. Likewise, female size may change over evolutionary time due to selection unrelated to reproduction (for example, predation risk, resource availability and interspecific resource partitioning, thermoregulation [5761]). Since larger females typically produce larger offspring and are more fecund in many taxa [19], a change in female size may only indirectly affect offspring size and/or number even if neither is directly under selection [10,62,63]. Moreover, amphibian terrestrial eggs are larger than aquatic eggs and frequently cared for [10,16,64]. Finally, direct developing eggs (i.e., those hatching as juveniles) are larger than those hatching as tadpoles in amphibians because they require more resources to complete development [65,66], are generally terrestrial, and laid in smaller clutches [10]. Thus, we need to consider all these factors simultaneously if we are to disentangle how strongly parental care and offspring habitat affect the evolutionary trajectory of offspring size and/or number.

While parental care strategies are highly diverse, previous comparative studies have typically reduced care to a simple binary trait (care or no care). This is problematic because the costs and benefits of care likely differ between the sexes [67] and vary across care forms. For example, in mammals, 2 male care behaviors, carrying the offspring and provisioning the mother, are associated with more frequent breeding and larger litters, respectively, while 2 other paternal behaviors, grooming and huddling with the offspring, are unrelated to life history traits [56]. Finally, diverse ecological and social conditions may promote distinct care behaviors and adaptations. In amphibians, tadpole feeding is associated with larval development in small, water-filled, plant cavities [68], while care forms at the tadpole and juvenile stage are promoted by the earlier evolution of egg attendance in both sexes [69]. Hence, clumping care diversity into a simple binary trait likely obscures meaningful differences in how diverse care forms, ranging from simple egg attendance to complex morpho-physiological adaptations like viviparity, may influence the trade-off between offspring size and number. Recent studies have attempted to incorporate diversity in amphibian parental care by ranking care forms for their presumed degree of protection or nutrition (S1 Table); however, such classifications have limited empirical foundation.

Amphibians are an ideal group in which to investigate how offspring habitat and diverse forms of parental care influence the offspring size–number trade-off. While the majority of amphibians spawn in aquatic environments and provide no care, an incredible diversity of care forms at the egg, tadpole, and/or juvenile stage of offspring development has evolved (and been lost) multiple times across the phylogeny and is found in about 25% of extant species [69]. These include attendance, transport, brooding (eggs or tadpoles develop on or inside the parental body), feeding (the mother provisions the offspring with trophic eggs or sloughed-off skin), and viviparity [69] (Table 1). With the exception of feeding and viviparity, all these care behaviors and adaptations can be found in both sexes in amphibians [69] (Table 1). Moreover, eggs, larvae, and/or juveniles can be terrestrial or aquatic and eggs may hatch as either tadpoles or juveniles (i.e., direct development). Using this diversity, we investigate the hypotheses that parental care and terrestrial offspring habitat select for larger eggs and smaller clutches. We thus test theoretical predictions [13,39,40,52,53] for expected positive associations between egg size, parental care forms, and terrestrial habitat at each stage of development (egg, tadpole, and juvenile), while controlling for allometry, clutch size, and direct development. We build similar models swapping clutch size and egg size when investigating the evolution of clutch size.

Table 1. Description of amphibian parental care.

Brief definition of parental care forms from Furness and Capellini [69], where details of the data collection protocols can be found. Sample sizes for the variables as used in this study can be found in S2 Table. All care forms with the exception of tadpole feeding and viviparity can be carried out by either (or both) sexes in a species.

Parental care form (caring sex) Definition
Egg attendance ( or ) A parent remains (full or part-time) with the eggs at a fixed location.
Egg brooding (♀ or ♂) A parent broods the eggs on (for example, in pouches on the back, between the hindlegs) or inside their body (for example, vocal sacs, stomach, under the dorsal skin).
Tadpole attendance ( or ) A parent remains (full or part-time) with the larvae (aquatic or terrestrial).
Tadpole transport ( or ) Relocation of tadpoles from one habitat to another, where they become free-living.
Tadpole brooding (♀ or ♂) Tadpoles complete most or all of their development inside or on the body of the parent and are not free-living.
Tadpole feeding (♀) Female provides eggs for tadpoles to consume (Anura).
Juvenile attendance (♀ or ♂) A parent remains (full or part-time) with juveniles at a fixed location.
Juvenile transport (♀ or ♂) Transport of newly hatched froglets on parent’s body.
Juvenile feeding (♀) Female provisions juveniles with sloughed off skin (i.e., dermatophagy or skin-feeding in Caecilians).
Viviparity (♀) Female gestates offspring in the oviducts and gives live birth. This category includes lecithotrophic and matrotrophic viviparity.

Importantly, the development of new cutting-edge phylogenetic methods and large phylogenies with hundreds of species now offer the opportunity to test the novel prediction that the rates of egg and clutch size evolution increase if they are under selection imposed by the evolution of parental care and/or terrestrial habitat. It is well documented that the speed at which traits evolve (the “rate of phenotypic evolution”) may differ across a phylogeny (“rate heterogeneity”). In other words, rate heterogeneity indicates that phenotypic traits have accumulated more (or less) change along some branches of a phylogeny than expected for their length (often measured as time) and when compared to other branches. Given that phenotypic traits should evolve more rapidly when under intense selection [3137,7072], high rates of phenotypic evolution in some branches could be the result of stronger selection in those branches. Here, we use variable rates models [37] (Methods, Variable rates model) not only to quantify the direction and magnitude of effects of proposed drivers (parental care, offspring habitat, and direct development) on target traits (egg and clutch size) like standard phylogenetic approaches (such as phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) models), but also to identify branches in the phylogeny along which egg and clutch size have accumulated exceptionally high levels of phenotypic change. Such branches are visually represented as stretched branches and indicate episodes of likely strong selection (Fig 1A). If the proposed drivers are responsible for intense selection on target traits, causing exceptional evolutionary rates, we expect that they explain at least some rate heterogeneity identified by variable rates models in which the proposed drivers are not included. Therefore, the proposed drivers should associate with target traits in the direction predicted by the hypothesis (as in PGLS), and, in addition, models including them as predictors should exhibit fewer (still unexplained) cases of exceptional rates (stretched branches) compared to those in models without them (Fig 1A versus 1B). In the context of this study, we should therefore find that, if parental care and terrestrial habitat select for larger eggs and/or smaller clutches, stretched branches indicating exceptional evolutionary rates in egg or clutch size are fewer in models with care and offspring habitat included as predictors relative to models without them (Fig 1A and 1B).

Fig 1. Predictions linking rate heterogeneity to proposed selective drivers using phylogenetic variable rate models.

Fig 1

We first identify heterogeneity in rates of phenotypic evolution in a target trait (i.e., egg or clutch size) with a simple model (A) that excludes any predictor of interest. The simple model identifies branches with exceptionally high rates of evolutionary change, which are visually represented as stretched branches. As an example, here, we illustrate egg size (represented by size of the black dots). Our simple model for egg size included only body size and clutch size (these predictors are not visually represented in this figure). Next, we run a model including additional explanatory variable(s) of interest (for example, parental care forms, offspring habitat, direct development). If the additional predictor(s) select for changes in egg size, they should explain at least some of the rate heterogeneity observed in the simpler model (A). Thus, variable rate models including additional predictor(s) are expected to identify fewer branches with exceptional rates of egg size evolution (B) when compared to the simpler models without them (A). For simplicity, in this example, we visualize the expected effect of only one predictor of interest, offspring habitat (red, terrestrial; blue, aquatic), on egg size (black dots; larger dots indicate larger eggs).

Results

Egg size

We use phylogenetic variable rate models and a sample of over 800 species with no missing data (S1 Data; sample sizes in S2 Table) to quantify the relative importance of individual care forms and offspring habitat on egg size, while accounting for the trade-off with clutch size, allometric effects, and direct development. Our models simultaneously identify branches in the phylogeny exhibiting exceptional rate of egg size evolution. Starting with a model including all predictors (“Full model,” S3A Table), we followed a model simplification procedure, progressively eliminating each nonsignificant predictor until only significant predictors remained (“Reduced model,” S3B Table) (Methods, Identifying significant predictors of egg and clutch size evolution). Consistent with theoretical predictions [40,52,53], our variable rates approach reveals that eggs are larger in species with larger body size, smaller clutches, terrestrial eggs, direct development, egg brooding, female egg attendance, and male egg attendance (Fig 2A, S3B Table). In contrast to predictions, however, eggs are smaller with 2 female care behaviors: tadpole feeding and female tadpole attendance (Fig 2A, S3B Table).

Fig 2. Egg and clutch size evolution.

Fig 2

In (A) and (D), posterior distributions of the parameter estimates (β) of the significant predictors in the reduced model (S3B and S3D Table) for egg size (A) and clutch size (D), using phylogenetic variable rates models. Branches of the amphibian phylogeny that exhibit exceptional rates of evolution (r > 1 in ≥95% of the posterior distribution) are depicted in red for egg size (simple model, with only body size and clutch size as predictors, in (B), and reduced model in (C)) and for clutch size (simple model, with only body size and egg size as predictors, in (E), reduced model in (F)). The identity of these branches is reported in S5 Table for egg size and S6 Table for clutch size. Raw data for these analyses are available in S1 and S2 Data.

We further evaluate the relative importance of each significant predictor (S4A Table) by examining the change in the model’s marginal likelihood when one predictor at a time is removed, which provides an estimate of effect sizes for each predictor (Methods, Identifying significant predictors of egg and clutch size evolution). This shows that body size, clutch size, and direct development have a greater effect on egg size than terrestrial eggs and parental care forms (S4A Table). These effect sizes correspond to a remarkable increase in egg size for an average-sized amphibian with average clutch size, ranging between approximately 15% for female egg attendance to 57% for egg brooding, and a decrease in egg size of nearly 50% with female tadpole attendance and 32% with tadpole feeding (S4A Table).

Variable rates analysis also identifies exceptional rates of egg size evolution, while accounting only for body size and clutch size, in 19 branches (Fig 2B, S5 Table) (Methods, Identifying rate shifts). These branches indicate the phylogenetic position of episodes of intense selection on egg size. The significant predictors in the reduced model (S3B Table) explain the exceptional rates of egg size evolution in only 3 of these branches (Fig 2B and 2C, S5 Table).

Clutch size

From the full model with all predictors, model simplification procedure identifies the significant predictors. The reduced model with only significant predictors from our variable rates analysis demonstrates that clutches are bigger in larger species and smaller with larger eggs, terrestrial eggs, terrestrial larvae, direct development, egg brooding, male tadpole attendance, male tadpole transport, and tadpole feeding (Fig 2D, S3C and S3D Table). Changes in model marginal likelihood when one predictor at a time is removed indicate that after body size and egg size, terrestrial eggs, terrestrial larvae, and direct development have a greater effect on clutch size than care forms (S4B Table). These effect sizes correspond to a reduction in clutch size, ranging from about 50% with terrestrial eggs and male tadpole attendance up to 71% with tadpole feeding for an average-sized amphibian producing eggs of average size (S4B Table). While accounting for body size and egg size, we identify exceptional rates of clutch size evolution in 135 branches, 108 of which (80%) are explained by care forms, direct development, and terrestrial eggs and larvae (Fig 2E and 2F, S6 Table). This suggests that offspring habitat, direct development, and care forms are responsible for intense selection on clutch size in these branches.

Discussion

The trade-off between offspring size and number is central to life history theory and has important implications in both basic and applied questions; however, which selective pressures influence its evolution, is debated. Here, we have investigated 2 hypotheses proposing that parental care and/or more favorable terrestrial habitats for offspring development select for larger eggs [13,39,40,52], while accounting for allometric effects, direct development, and the trade-off with clutch size. We have also asked whether the proposed drivers have acted on clutch size rather than egg size. Our results show that amphibians with direct development and those with terrestrial offspring have both larger eggs and smaller clutches (Fig 3). Considering individual parental care forms separately has allowed us to unravel the complex and contrasting influence that they exert on the trade-off, with egg brooding, male and female egg attendance increasing egg size, female tadpole attendance and feeding decreasing egg size, and egg brooding, tadpole feeding, male tadpole attendance, and male tadpole transport reducing clutch size (Fig 3). Importantly, by simultaneously considering variation in rates of phenotypic evolution across the phylogeny, our variable rates analyses demonstrate that the significant predictors of egg and clutch size evolution can explain much of the rapid phenotypic change in these life history traits, indicating that they have imposed intense selection on the offspring size–number trade-off.

Fig 3. Summary of results on the evolution of egg size–clutch size trade-off.

Fig 3

(A) Distribution of parental care forms, offspring habitat, direct development, and life history traits in amphibians (n = 805 species; raw data in S1 and S2 Data). All variables, except clutch size, egg size, and body size, are binary. (B) Summary of the significant associations for the trade-off between egg size and clutch size, combining their respective reduced models (S3B and S3D Table). Variables associated with increases in egg or clutch size are above the trade-off and indicated with a plus; variables associated with decreases in egg or clutch size are below the trade-off and indicated by a minus. For each variable, we report in brackets the percentage of change in egg or clutch size computed for an average-sized amphibian with average clutch size or egg size, respectively (S4A Table for egg size and S4B Table for clutch size).

We find broad support for theoretical models that both parental care and terrestrial offspring habitat promote the evolution of larger offspring, but the role of parental care is more complex than previously appreciated and depends on the type of care, the stage at which care is provided and the sex of the caring parent. Specifically, while accounting for allometry and the trade-off with clutch size, our study demonstrates that eggs are larger by about 20% if terrestrial, as predicted by theoretical models suggesting that favorable environmental conditions for offspring development select for larger offspring [40]. In support of the theoretical prediction that parental care drives an increase in egg size [52], we simultaneously find that eggs are 15% and 20% larger if attended by females and males, respectively, and nearly 60% bigger if brooded by parents. However, in contrast to this prediction [52], eggs are smaller by 32% with tadpole feeding and by nearly 50% with female tadpole attendance. Although these results may seem unexpected, we note that Nussbaum and Schultz’s theoretical model [40] predicts that, at any given level of parental care, egg size may decrease if environmental conditions for juvenile survival improve. We propose that this may be the case for female tadpole attendance, which occurs in ponds and terrestrial protected habitats, such as burrows, where the tadpoles can be defended against predators [39,73]. We suggest that tadpole feeding females may not need to produce large eggs because they continue to provision their young throughout larval development, analogous to matrotrophic viviparous fish (for example, those with maternal provisioning of offspring via a placenta). Oviparous and viviparous species without matrotrophy typically supply their eggs fully before fertilization, after which they provide no further nutrition [74,75]. Conversely, females of matrotrophic fish start off with small eggs, which they continue to provision throughout development [74,75]. Overall, accounting for diversity in parental care has allowed us to unravel that different care behaviors and adaptations may drive the evolution of egg size in different directions and at different magnitude. We anticipate that similar results will be found in taxa with high diversity of care forms, such as other vertebrate classes, insects, and crustaceans.

Theoretical models and empirical studies on the role of care and offspring habitat have primarily focused on the evolution of offspring size alone [14,15,40,52,53]. However, selection may act on offspring number instead and only indirectly alter offspring size. While accounting for offspring number in statistical models offers a much stronger test of hypotheses on proposed drivers of offspring size evolution, investigating whether such drivers also affect offspring number (while accounting for offspring size) provides a comprehensive answer. We thus also ask whether the proposed drivers of egg size evolution directly affect clutch size. After accounting for allometry and the trade-off with egg size, our variable rates analysis indicates that terrestrial habitat at the egg and larval stage, direct development, egg brooding, tadpole feeding, male tadpole attendance, and male tadpole transport are associated with a substantial reduction in clutch size ranging between 50% and 70%. These results are consistent with numerous physiological and physical mechanisms known to constrain clutch size. For example, because oxygen diffusion is compromised within the jelly of terrestrial eggs, smaller clutches ensure sufficient oxygenation by reducing competition [46]. Oxygen limitation is likely to also be particularly acute for direct developing eggs, typically laid on land, given their extended period of development and large size. For tadpole feeding, we suggest that mothers cannot support large clutches because they often provide energetically expensive nutrition over a long period of offspring development. Consistent with this idea, female strawberry poison frogs (Oophaga pumilio) lay fewer eggs when simultaneously provisioning older tadpoles, while tadpoles in larger clutches receive smaller meals and suffer higher mortality [76]. Instead, physical space may constrain clutch size in brooding species, in species with male tadpole transport, and those with terrestrial tadpoles. Specifically, the size of the body cavity or surface area of the back is likely to limit the number of eggs parents can care for in egg brooding frogs or the number of tadpoles that males can transport [73]. Likewise, terrestrial tadpoles with no caring parents frequently develop in foam nests, burrows, or within cup-shaped nests and typically do not feed [39,64]. These confined spaces are likely to provide shelter to only a few tadpoles, while limitation to oxygen diffusion might further constrain the number of developing larvae as it does for eggs. While constraints on offspring number beyond amphibians have been previously discussed mostly in relation to viviparity [11,77], our results suggest that clutches are likely to be reduced in many other species in which the eggs or young are physically associated with the parental body or are placed in microenvironments or nests where physiological or physical conditions impose an upper limit to the number of offspring they can accommodate.

Bringing findings for egg size and clutch size together, this study reveals how proposed drivers affect both or only one of the 2 elements of this trade-off (Fig 3B). Specifically, terrestrial eggs, egg brooding, and direct development act simultaneously on both egg and clutch size, i.e., directly increase egg size and decrease clutch size, beyond the indirect effect that they already have on the other element of the trade-off. Instead, male egg attendance, female egg attendance, and female tadpole attendance only associate with egg size; tadpole terrestriality, male tadpole attendance, and male tadpole transport only associate with smaller clutches; while tadpole feeding is associated with both smaller eggs and smaller clutches. By accounting for diversity in care forms and offspring habitat by stage of development, we demonstrate that terrestrial habitat and direct development consistently lead to larger eggs and smaller clutches, while different care forms can have contrasting effects on the offspring size–number trade-off. Thus, it is not surprising that studies clumping or arbitrarily ranking care forms across developmental stages find that terrestrial habitat, but not parental care, is associated with egg size or number. Many theoretical models consider parental care as a uniform species characteristic that varies in duration, intensity (for example, how much food to provision), or, in the context of sexual conflict, by caring sex. However, our study demonstrates that the effect of parental care on egg size and clutch size is far more complex and differs depending on the type of care, the stage at which care is given and the sex of the carer. We thus need a new theoretical framework that explicitly considers such diversity of care and provides quantitative predictions on how different care behaviors and adaptations should impact the evolutionary trajectory of egg and clutch size and, more broadly, life history strategies.

Importantly, our variable rates models explicitly consider heterogeneity in rates of phenotypic evolution and simultaneously identify where in the phylogeny egg size and clutch size have accumulated more phenotypic change than expected, indicative of intense selection. Episodes of exceptional rates of egg size evolution are few (19 branches), and the significant ecological and parental care predictors account for only 3 of these exceptional rates. In contrast, exceptional rates of evolution in clutch size were frequent (135 branches), and 80% of these were explained by ecological and parental care predictors. Thus, our approach reveals that many more branches across the phylogeny exhibit higher rates of phenotypic evolution for clutch size than egg size, most of which is explained by offspring habitat, direct development, and care forms. This likely reflects the potential physiological constraints on the size of anamniotic eggs (for example, due to oxygenation [46,47]) and the higher interspecific variance in clutch size (ranging from 1 to tens of thousands) than egg size. Therefore, our study reveals that there is greater opportunity for selection on clutch size than egg size in amphibians. Based on our findings, we expect that selection has acted more strongly on offspring number than on offspring size in lineages with high diversity of parental care forms and adaptations, high diversity of habitats in which the eggs develop, and large variance in clutch size, like fish and insects. Conversely, egg size may be under stronger selection than clutch size in lineages like birds that exhibit lower diversity in care forms compared to amphibians and are limited in the number of offspring they can produce due space limitations within nests. We suggest that future comparative studies testing hypotheses on the evolutionary drivers of this key life history trade-off consider both offspring number and size and explicitly incorporate diversity in parental care, while theoretical models should evaluate under which conditions the greater response of clutch size to selection affects the evolutionary trajectory of offspring size.

To conclude, this study demonstrates that evolutionary changes in offspring habitat, parental care, and direct development have led to rapid adaptive evolution in egg and clutch size. While terrestrial offspring habitat influences the offspring size–number trade-off as predicted by theoretical models [13,39,40,52], considering the full diversity in care forms by stage of offspring development and sex of caring parent has revealed that different care behaviors and adaptations have contrasting effects on the trade-off. Importantly, incorporating variation in rates of egg and clutch size evolution in our theoretical framework has allowed us to test predictions not only on the direction and magnitude of effects of proposed drivers, but also on how proposed drivers lead to rapid change in the trade-off. Our approach thus reveals that episodes of rapid evolution in egg and clutch size are explained by offspring habitat, direct development, and some care forms, as expected if these traits select for rapid adaptive changes in egg and clutch size to new conditions. More broadly, we expect that other comparative studies incorporating rate heterogeneity in their theoretical and analytical framework will further reveal how behavioral traits and ecological conditions explain rapid phenotypic change, and thus identify episodes of intense selection, at a large comparative scale.

Methods

Data collection

Parental care and direct development. Parental care data (attendance, transport, brooding, feeding, viviparity) at the egg, tadpole, and juvenile stage (Table 1) were taken from Furness and Capellini [69] where detailed descriptions of the data collection protocols can be found. All parental care variables are binary (S1 Data). In our analyses, we included all forms of care that were represented by more than 5 species exhibiting the trait of interest (S2 Table), hence we discarded juvenile transport and juvenile feeding. Likewise, we considered the sex of the caring parent in each care form only if the number of species exhibiting a trait remained greater than 5 (S2 Table).

Direct development referred to eggs hatching directly as juveniles (as opposed to larvae) or offspring being born as juveniles in viviparous species. We thus class all species with a larval stage as lacking direct development and those without a larval stage as having direct development, regardless of whether they were cared for or not, and, if cared for, irrespective of the form of care received and the sex of the caring parent. Thus, direct development was a binary variable (sample sizes by category in S2 Table; raw data in S1 Data).

Offspring habitat. Data on the environment where eggs and tadpoles are found were extracted from 458 primary and secondary sources and cross-checked (reference list in S1 and S3 Data). We discarded species lacking information on these variables, or for which information was contradictory between sources, and this contradiction could not be resolved. Thus, we did not infer the condition for species with ambiguous information from data of closely related species.

Unlike most previous studies, we classified the habitat where eggs and tadpoles are found (i.e., aquatic or terrestrial) separately and based on microhabitats, because the risk of desiccation may differ substantially by stage of offspring development (i.e., where only the eggs or tadpoles are aquatic) and vary by microhabitat. Therefore, we scored the habitat in which eggs are laid as a binary trait, i.e., as aquatic or terrestrial, based upon oviposition location (sample sizes in S2 Table). Eggs were scored as aquatic if they developed in water irrespective of the location or size of the water body (i.e., streams, small or large ponds, small pools), and eggs in foam nests on the water surface or in excavated basins partially filled with water or directly adjacent to water were scored as aquatic. Conversely, eggs that developed on the ground away from water (i.e., in leaf litter, in burrows or nests or soil cavities, under stones or logs, in rock crevices, and similar) or arboreally (i.e., attached to leaves or vegetation) were scored as terrestrial. Likewise, eggs located in foam nests in terrestrial subterranean or excavated chambers far removed from water were scored as terrestrial. Eggs laid in phytotelmata (plant cavities filled with water) were scored as terrestrial if the eggs were explicitly described as being placed terrestrially in phytotelmata (i.e., above the waterline on bamboo internodes, on bromeliad leaves, side of tree hole, or similar); in all other cases, such eggs were classified as aquatic. Egg brooding species (eggs developing on or inside the parental body) with terrestrial adults were scored as having terrestrial eggs, whereas brooding species of the family Pipidae in which adults live in water were classed as having aquatic eggs. Likewise, viviparous species with terrestrial adults were scored as exhibiting terrestrial eggs, and viviparous Caecilian species in the family Typhlonectidae in which adults live in water were classified as having aquatic eggs.

We classify the habitat in which tadpoles grow as a binary trait (sample sizes in S2 Table). Specifically, we considered larvae as terrestrial when they develop exclusively on land away from water in a terrestrial nest, burrow, on the ground or on rocks, or on or inside the parent’s body and the adult is terrestrial. All other species had larvae developing in water, including those whose tadpoles develop in phytotelmata, or direct development and are classified as not having terrestrial tadpoles. Data on egg and larval habitat can be found in S1 Data.

Life history data. We found data on life history traits for 805 species with data on parental care, direct development, and offspring developmental habitat (S1 Data). Egg size (mm), clutch size, and adult body length (mm) were taken from Allen and colleagues [21], Oliveira and colleagues [78] (AmphiBIO), and additional primary sources (reference list in S1 and S3 Data). Egg size and clutch size were reported as a range (minimum–maximum) in Oliveira and colleagues [78] but as means in Allen and colleagues [21]. Therefore, we calculated the midpoint of the minimum and maximum values for egg and clutch size in AmphiBIO and combined with Allen and colleagues’ data [21] (see below). We checked all egg size values of viviparous species in both AmphiBIO and Allen and colleagues’ data sets. AmphiBIO sometimes recorded offspring body size at birth in viviparous species in the same column as egg diameter. These values were discarded because they are not comparable, given that the measured length of an offspring at birth (i.e., uncoiled) is necessarily larger than egg diameter and it is not taken at the same developmental point. We also discarded all egg size values for species with matrotrophic viviparity. In matrotrophic species, egg size is initially small and offspring increase in size over the course of gestation [79]; we could not verify when in development egg/offspring size was measured and therefore whether this was taken at a comparable stage to that of the oviparous taxa. Thus, the only values retained for egg size in viviparous taxa were for species that exhibited lecithotrophic viviparity or ovoviviparity and in which the value could be confirmed in a primary reference.

We visually identified outliers within each data set using trait by trait plots. We corrected any error (i.e., mis-entry from original source) and searched the literature for additional sources when we could not locate or determine the primary source; we then corrected the value if necessary. Thus, all outliers within each data set were either determined to be errors and corrected or verified as correct and left unchanged. Next, we plotted comparable life history trait values from the 2 data sets against each other and identified highly discrepant values. We checked the accuracy of the discrepant values by consulting primary and secondary sources. If the value from 1 data set was determined to be in error or likely to be in error, it was deleted and the value from the other data set was retained. For the few cases in which the life history trait value could not be verified, we took the mean value from the 2 data sets. We built our data set by taking life history values from Allen and colleagues [21] if available, and, if not, from AmphiBIO. Note, however, that the data on body size were not combined between the 2 data sets because Allen and colleagues [21] reported the mean snout vent length for all 3 Amphibian orders, while AmphiBIO reported maximum values of snout vent length for Anura, but total length for Caudata and Gymnophiona. Therefore, we used only data from AmphiBIO for body size. Finally, we added new data for species with missing values for egg size, clutch size, and body size from additional primary and secondary sources (reference list in S1 and S3 Data). Life history data were log10-transformed for statistical analysis.

Phylogeny. We used the phylogeny of Pyron [80], which does not have any polytomies, in all analyses as this is the most comprehensive time-calibrated tree for amphibians that was built solely with molecular data without imputation of missing taxa based on taxonomy (i.e., without molecular data). The phylogeny pruned for the species in our study is available as S2 Data.

Correlated evolution of offspring size–number trade-off with parental care and offspring habitat

Multicollinearity between predictors. We assess the magnitude of multicollinearity between all predictors in the full model for egg and clutch size using variance inflation factors (VIFs) [81], computed on a non-phylogenetic regression using the R package car. This is a conservative approach because the inclusion of phylogeny typically weakens the strength of covariation between variables; therefore, VIFs are likely to be higher in nonphylogenetic than in phylogenetic models. VIF scores greater than 5 indicate likely problematic collinearity, and greater than 10 very problematic collinearity [81]. We found no evidence of problematic multicollinearity between predictors in our models of egg and clutch size evolution since all VIF values were less than 2.5 (S7 Table).

Variable rates model. We use phylogenetic variable rates models [31,37] in BayesTraits V.3 [82] to test for associations between life history traits (egg or clutch size), type of parental care, and offspring developmental habitat (terrestrial or aquatic eggs and larvae), while accounting for allometry, the trade-off between offspring size and number, and direct development (S2 Table). Variable rates model is an extension of PGLS models [83]. However, unlike standard PGLS, variable rates model can simultaneously account for deviation from the assumption of the underlying Brownian motion model, that the rate of evolution is constant throughout the phylogeny, i.e., there is heterogeneity in the rate of phenotypic evolution [37]. Specifically, this approach identifies branches in the phylogeny that have accumulated more or less phenotypic evolution than expected for their length (i.e., here, time) and relative to the rest of the phylogeny (i.e., the “background” rate). The model then stretches and compresses such branches in direct proportion to the observed higher or lower amount of phenotypic evolution. This makes these branches conform to the assumption of Brownian motion and thus allows a more accurate estimate of model parameters. Crucially, identifying which branches exhibit an exceptional rate of phenotypic evolution can help us identify the selective pressures responsible for these bursts of rapid adaptive change [31,37] (see Identifying rate shifts).

Variable rates models estimate the rate of evolution in the phylogenetically structured residual error of a linear model along the branches of the phylogeny. The model divides the Brownian variance of a continuous trait (σ2) into 2 components, which are estimated simultaneously: a global background rate of evolution (σb2) and rate scalars r defining branch specific rate shifts relative to the background rate [37]. Together, the global background rate and branch specific r optimize the variance for each branch and identify the branches that have experienced a higher (r > 1) or lower (0 ≤ r < 1) rate of phenotypic evolution than the global background rate. This can be visually represented with a scaled phylogeny where each branch length has been multiplied by its specific scalar r, such that longer branches depict faster evolutionary rates (i.e., more phenotypic evolution than expected) and shorter branches slower evolutionary rates (i.e., less phenotypic evolution) than the global background rate. The model is implemented in a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) framework with reversible jump and returns a posterior distribution of partial regression coefficients for all predictors in the model, branch specific scalars r, global background rate σb2, and λ (the phylogenetic signal ranging between 0 and 1 [83]). Following previous studies [37,71], we use a gamma prior (α = 1.1, β rescaled to give a median of 1) for the scalar parameter as this ensures that both rate increases and decreases are equally proposed. Note that we provide no a priori information to the model about how many branches should be rescaled, which branches should exhibit rate shifts, and by how much. Instead, reversible jump allows the algorithm to propose and estimate any number of scalars r between 0 and the total number of nodes in the phylogeny (including the tips), anywhere in the phylogeny, as appropriate to the data [37].

All MCMC chains were run for a total of 200.5 million iterations with the first 500,000 discarded as burnin and sampling every 100,000 iterations thereafter. We used uniform priors ranging between −100 and 100 for all estimated regression coefficients and a uniform prior ranging between 0 and 1 for λ. We ensured that the effective sample size (ESS) for all estimated parameters was greater than 1,000, calculated with the R package LaplacesDemon, and visually inspected the trace plots to confirm that the chains converged and had good mixing.

Identifying significant predictors of egg and clutch size evolution. We entered egg or clutch size as the response variable in a variable rates model, and body size, clutch size, or egg size, respectively, type of parental care (female egg attendance, male egg attendance, egg brooding, female tadpole attendance, male tadpole attendance, female tadpole transport, male tadpole transport, tadpole brooding, tadpole feeding, juvenile attendance, and viviparity), direct development, and offspring developmental habitat (terrestrial eggs, terrestrial larvae) as predictors. Our data set consisted of 805 species with no missing data for any of the above 16 variables (S1 Data; sample sizes for each binary predictor are given in S2 Table). We first fit a “full model” including all predictors (S3A and S3C Table). Next, we followed a model simplification procedure starting from full models with all predictors and progressively eliminating the least significant predictor and rerunning the analysis until only significant predictors remained in the simplest statistically justifiable model (“Reduced models” in S3B and S3D Table). The significance of each predictor was evaluated as the proportion of the posterior distribution of its beta value that crossed zero (Px), with influential predictors having Px < 0.05 [31,37]. We report the mean, median, 95% credible intervals, Px, and ESS of all predictors in the full and reduced models for egg and clutch size evolution in S3 Table.

We quantified the effect size of each significant predictor in the reduced models through the change in model marginal likelihood when one significant predictor was individually removed from the reduced model. Thus, we compared the median likelihood values of the reduced model against that of a reduced model missing one predictor at a time (S4 Table). For each significant binary predictor in the reduced models (S3B and S3D Table), we also estimated the percentage change in egg or clutch size when a trait of interest was present versus when it was absent. This was computed based on the parameter estimates of the reduced models and in a species of average body size with average egg or clutch size, while holding all other binary predictors as absent (S4 Table).

Identifying rate shifts. Using variable rates model, we could simultaneously identify the significant predictors of egg and clutch size and branches exhibiting significant deviations (i.e., rate shifts) in the rate of phenotypic evolution relative to the background rate. We defined branches as showing exceptional rate shifts if their estimated scalar r was greater than 1 (positive shifts, i.e., higher rates of evolution) or less than 1 (negative shifts, i.e., lower rates of evolution) in 95% of the posterior distribution [31]. Branches showing exceptional rates of evolution reveal that selection has acted more strongly along those branches. Therefore, to investigate whether the significant predictors in the reduced models were responsible for any shifts in the evolutionary rates of egg or clutch size, we compared the number of branches exhibiting rate shifts in the reduced models (S3B and S3D Table) with that of simpler models that only included body size and the trade-off between egg and clutch size as predictors (Fig 1A versus 1B). Branches exhibiting rate shifts in these simpler models showed that there was significant unexplained variance in egg or clutch size rates of evolution. We expected that, if parental care forms, direct development, and/or offspring habitat explained the rate heterogeneity identified in the simpler models, the number of stretched (or compressed) branches in the reduced model should be lower than the number in their respective simpler models (i.e., comparisons between Fig 1Aa and 1B). This evidence would strongly suggest that parental care, direct development, and offspring developmental habitats have selected for rapid adaptive changes in egg or clutch size in the stretched (or compressed) branches of the simpler models that no longer exhibit exceptional rate of evolution in the reduced models. We report the list of branches exhibiting rate shifts in the simple and reduced models for egg size and clutch size in S5 and S6 Tables, respectively.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Summary of previous phylogenetic comparative studies on the correlated evolution between parental care, offspring developmental environment, and/or offspring size–number trade-off in amphibians.

Here, we only report results of variables of interest to the aims of our study.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Sample sizes for categorical, binary, independent variables considered as predictors of egg and clutch size in this study.

The total sample size of our data set is 805 species, with complete parental care, offspring habitat, direct development, and life history data (body size, egg size, and clutch size). Here, we report the sample sizes for these 805 species for all predictors considered in this study, those in which more than 5 species exhibited the trait of interest.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Variable rates models for egg and clutch size.

Results for the analysis of egg size in (A) full model, including all predictor variables, and (B) the simplest statistically justifiable model (reduced model) with only significant predictors after model simplification (see Methods, Identifying significant predictors of egg and clutch size evolution). Results of analysis for clutch size in (C) full model and (D) reduced model. The columns report the ESS, the mean and median of the posterior distributions, the 95% HPD interval, and the proportion of the posterior distribution crossing zero (Px) for each predictor variable in the model. We also report model R2, phylogenetic signal as estimated by λ, and model marginal likelihood. ESS, effective sample size; HPD, highest posterior density.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Effect sizes of the significant variables in the reduced model for egg size (A) and clutch size (B) and corresponding percentage change in egg and clutch size for an average-sized amphibian.

Effect sizes are quantified as the median reduction in marginal likelihood when a given predictor is individually removed and the model rerun (see Methods, Identifying significant predictors of egg and clutch size evolution). The percentage change is computed as the difference between the estimated egg (A) or clutch size (B) when each predictor in turn is present compared to when it is absent, for an average-sized amphibian with average egg (A) or clutch size (B), holding all other predictors of the reduced models as absent. The direction of the percentage change reflects an increase (+) or decrease (−) in egg (A) or clutch size (B).

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Rate shifts in amphibian egg size evolution from variable rates model.

We report the 19 branches that show exceptional rates of evolution in egg size, relative to the background rate, from the simple model including only body size and clutch size (left column) and the reduced model including the significant predictors (right column; the statistics for the reduced model is reported in full in S3B Table) (see Methods, Identifying rate shifts). Each branch is identified by its descendants. For each branch, we also report the median of the scalar r (see Methods, Identifying rate shifts). These branches correspond to those highlighted in red in Fig 2B and 2C. The blank cells listed under the reduced model are those that exhibit rate shifts in the simple model but not the reduced model, i.e., branches for which rapid egg size evolution can be attributed to the addition of parental care and reproductive ecology variables. The addition of terrestrial eggs, direct development, and parental care variables in the reduced model explains rapid egg size evolution in only 3 branches, that of Bufo valliceps, Eleutherodactylus alticola, and the clade consisting of Centrolene geckoideum, Centrolene savagei, Cochranella euknemos, Cochranella granulosa, Espadarana prosoblepon, Teratohyla midas, and Teratohyla spinosa.

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Rate shifts in amphibian clutch size evolution from variable rates model.

We report the 135 branches that show exceptional rates of evolution in clutch size, relative to the background rate, from the simple model including only body size and egg size (left column) and the reduced model also including the significant care and reproductive ecology predictors (right column; the statistics for the reduced model is reported in full in S3D Table). Each branch is identified by its descendants. For each branch, we also report the median of the scalar r (see Methods, Identifying rate shifts). These branches correspond to those highlighted in red in Fig 2E and 2F. The blank cells listed under the reduced model are those that exhibit rate shifts in the simple model but not the reduced model, i.e., branches for which rapid clutch size evolution can be attributed to the addition of parental care and reproductive ecology variables. The addition of direct development, offspring habitat, and parental care variables explains rapid clutch size evolution in 108 branches.

(DOCX)

S7 Table. VIFs for the full models for egg size (A) and clutch size (B).

VIF, variance inflation factor.

(DOCX)

S1 Data. Raw data set for the 805 species used in this study.

(XLSX)

S2 Data. Pruned phylogeny from Pyron [80] used in this study.

(TREES)

S3 Data. Supplementary data references for the raw data reported in S1 Data.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Joanna Baker for sharing her R code; VIPER High Performance Computing facility and its support team at the University of Hull; James Gilbert for comments on early results of this study; and David Reznick, Martha Crump, and Jesse Delia for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Abbreviations

ESS

effective sample size

MCMC

Markov chain Monte Carlo

PGLS

phylogenetic generalized least squares

VIF

variance inflation factor

Data Availability

The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. The dataset compiled and analysed for this manuscript has been uploaded as S1 Data. The sources for the data are available in S1 Data and list in S3 Data. The phylogeny pruned from Pyron (2014) and used for the analysis is uploaded as S2 Data.

Funding Statement

We thank the University of Hull and Queen’s University Belfast for supporting this project with funding to IC, and Leverhulme Trust (Research Project Grant RPG-2017-017 to CV) for funding this research. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Leverhulme Trust: https://www.leverhulme.ac.uk.

References

  • 1.Roff DA. The evolution of life histories. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Stearns SC. The evolution of life histories. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lack D. The significance of clutch-size. Ibis. 1947;89(2):302–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lack D. The natural regulation of animal numbers. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1954. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rollinson N, Rowe L. Persistent directional selection on body size and a resolution to the paradox of stasis. Evolution. 2015;69(9):2441–51. doi: 10.1111/evo.12753 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ronget V, Gaillard JM, Coulson T, Garratt M, Gueyffier F, Lega JC, et al. Causes and consequences of variation in offspring body mass: Meta-analyses in birds and mammals. Biol Rev. 2018;93(1):1–27. doi: 10.1111/brv.12329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dani KGS, Kodandaramaiah U. Plant and animal reproductive strategies: lessons from offspring size and number tradeoffs. Front Ecol Evol. 2017;5(38):1–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lim JN, Senior AM, Nakagawa S. Heterogeneity in individual quality and reproductive trade-offs within species. Evolution. 2014;68(8):2306–18. doi: 10.1111/evo.12446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gilbert JD, Manica A. Parental care trade-offs and life-history relationships in insects. Am Nat. 2010;176(2):212–26. doi: 10.1086/653661 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gomez-Mestre I, Pyron RA, Wiens JJ. Phylogenetic analyses reveal unexpected patterns in the evolution of reproductive modes in frogs. Evolution. 2012;66(12):3687–700. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01715.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Goodwin NB, Dulvy NK, Reynolds JD. Life-history correlates of the evolution of live bearing in fishes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002;357(1419):259–67. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0958 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Monroe MJ, South SH, Alonzo SH. The evolution of fecundity is associated with female body size but not female-biased sexual size dimorphism among frogs. J Evol Biol. 2015;28(10):1793–803. doi: 10.1111/jeb.12695 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sargent RC, Taylor PD, Gross MR. Parental care and the evolution of egg size in fishes. Am Nat. 1987;129(1):32–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Summers K, McKeon CS, Heying H. The evolution of parental care and egg size: a comparative analysis in frogs. Proc R Soc B. 2006;273(1587):687–92. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Summers K, McKeon CS, Heying H, Hall J, Patrick W. Social and environmental influences on egg size evolution in frogs. J Zool. 2007;271(2):225–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vági B, Végvári Z, Liker A, Freckleton RP, Székely T. Parental care and the evolution of terrestriality in frogs. Proc R Soc B. 1900;2019(286):20182737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Godfray H, Partridge L, Harvey P. Clutch size. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1991;22(1):409–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kasimatis K, Riginos C. A phylogenetic analysis of egg size, clutch size, spawning mode, adult body size, and latitude in reef fishes. Coral Reefs. 2016;35(2):387–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pincheira-Donoso D, Hunt J. Fecundity selection theory: concepts and evidence. Biol Rev. 2017;92(1):341–56. doi: 10.1111/brv.12232 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vanadzina K, Phillips A, Martins B, Laland KN, Webster MM, Sheard C. Ecological and behavioural drivers of offspring size in marine teleost fishes. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2021. doi: 10.1111/geb.13392 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Allen WL, Street SE, Capellini I. Fast life history traits promote invasion success in amphibians and reptiles. Ecol Lett. 2017;20(2):222–30. doi: 10.1111/ele.12728 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Capellini I, Baker J, Allen WL, Street SE, Venditti C. The role of life history traits in mammalian invasion success. Ecol Lett. 2015;18(10):1099–107. doi: 10.1111/ele.12493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Denney NH, Jennings S, Reynolds JD. Life–history correlates of maximum population growth rates in marine fishes. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 2002;269(1506):2229–37. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Morrison L, Estrada A, Early R. Species traits suggest European mammals facing the greatest climate change are also least able to colonize new locations. Divers Distrib. 2018;24(9):1321–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sæther B-E, Bakke Ø. Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology. 2000;81(3):642–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Doherty TS, Balouch S, Bell K, Burns TJ, Feldman A, Fist C, et al. Reptile responses to anthropogenic habitat modification: A global meta-analysis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2020;29(7):1265–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pincheira-Donoso D, Harvey LP, Cotter SC, Stark G, Meiri S, Hodgson DJ. The global macroecology of brood size in amphibians reveals a predisposition of low-fecundity species to extinction. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2021;30(6):1299–310. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Santini L, González-Suárez M, Russo D, Gonzalez-Voyer A, von Hardenberg A, Ancillotto L. One strategy does not fit all: determinants of urban adaptation in mammals. Ecol Lett. 2019;22(2):365–76. doi: 10.1111/ele.13199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cardillo M, Mace GM, Gittleman JL, Jones KE, Bielby J, Purvis A. The predictability of extinction: biological and external correlates of decline in mammals. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2008;275(1641):1441–8. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pimm SL. The balance of nature? Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1991. doi: 10.1038/353454a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Baker J, Venditti C. Rapid change in mammalian eye shape is explained by activity pattern. Curr Biol. 2019;29(6):1082–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kratsch C, McHardy AC. RidgeRace: ridge regression for continuous ancestral character estimation on phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(17):i527–i33. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu477 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kutsukake N, Innan H. Simulation-based likelihood approach for evolutionary models of phenotypic traits on phylogeny. Evolution. 2013;67(2):355–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01775.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rabosky DL. Automatic detection of key innovations, rate shifts, and diversity-dependence on phylogenetic trees. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2):e89543. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Venditti C, Meade A, Pagel M. Multiple routes to mammalian diversity. Nature. 2011;479:393–6. doi: 10.1038/nature10516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Simões TR, Pierce SE. Sustained high rates of morphological evolution during the rise of tetrapods. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;5:1403–14. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01532-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Baker J, Meade A, Pagel M, Venditti C. Positive phenotypic selection inferred from phylogenies. Biol J Linn Soc. 2016;118(1):95–115. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Jørgensen C, Auer SK, Reznick DN. A model for optimal offspring size in fish, including live-bearing and parental effects. Am Nat. 2011;177(5):E119–E35. doi: 10.1086/659622 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.McDiarmid RW. Evolution of parental care in frogs. In: Burghardt G, Bekoff M, editors. The development of behavior: comparative and evolutionary aspects. New York: Garland STPM Press; 1978. p. 127–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nussbaum RA, Schultz DL. Coevolution of parental care and egg size. Am Nat. 1989;133(4):591–603. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Reznick D, Butler MJ IV, Rodd H. Life-history evolution in guppies. VII. The comparative ecology of high-and low-predation environments. Am Nat. 2001;157(2):126–40. doi: 10.1086/318627 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Martin KL, Carter AL. Brave new propagules: terrestrial embryos in anamniotic eggs. Integr Comp Biol. 2013;53(2):233–47. doi: 10.1093/icb/ict018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Magnusson WE, Hero J-M. Predation and the evolution of complex oviposition behaviour in Amazon rainforest frogs. Oecologia. 1991;86(3):310–8. doi: 10.1007/BF00317595 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Salthe SN, Mecham JS. Reproductive and courtship patterns. In: Lofts B, editor. Physiology of the Amphibia. 2. New York: Academic Press; 1974. p. 309–521. doi: 10.1016/0305-0491(74)90271-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Touchon JC, Worley JL. Oviposition site choice under conflicting risks demonstrates that aquatic predators drive terrestrial egg-laying. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 1808;2015(282):1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Seymour RS, Bradford DF. Respiration of amphibian eggs. Physiol Zool. 1995;68(1):1–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Warkentin KM, Gomez-Mestre I, McDaniel JG. Development, surface exposure, and embryo behavior affect oxygen levels in eggs of the red-eyed treefrog, Agalychnis callidryas. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2005;78(6):956–66. doi: 10.1086/432849 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Klug H, Bonsall MB. Life history and the evolution of parental care. Evolution. 2010;64(3):823–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00854.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Pike DA, Clark RW, Manica A, Tseng H-Y, Hsu J-Y, Huang W-S. Surf and turf: predation by egg-eating snakes has led to the evolution of parental care in a terrestrial lizard. Sci Rep. 2016;6:22207. doi: 10.1038/srep22207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Royle NJ, Alonzo SH, Moore AJ. Co-evolution, conflict and complexity: what have we learned about the evolution of parental care behaviours? Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2016;12:30–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wilson EO. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; 1975. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Shine R. Propagule size and parental care: the “safe harbor” hypothesis. J Theor Biol. 1978;75(4):417–24. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(78)90353-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Shine R. Alternative models for the evolution of offspring size. Am Nat. 1989;134(2):311–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Jetz W, Sekercioglu CH, Böhning-Gaese K. The worldwide variation in avian clutch size across species and space. PLoS Biol. 2008;6(12):e303. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Meiri S, Avila L, Bauer AM, Chapple DG, Das I, Doan TM, et al. The global diversity and distribution of lizard clutch sizes. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2020;29(9):1515–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.West HER, Capellini I. Male care and life history traits in mammals. Nat Commun. 2016;7(11854):1–10. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11854 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Capellini I, Gosling LM. Habitat primary production and the evolution of body size within the hartebeest clade. Biol J Linn Soc. 2007;92(3):431–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Jarman PJ. The social organisation of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour. 1974;48(3/4):215–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Pérez-Barbería FJ, Gordon IJ, Pagel M. The origins of sexual dimorphism in body size in ungulates. Evolution. 2002;56(6):1276–85. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb01438.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Pincheira-Donoso D, Harvey LP, Grattarola F, Jara M, Cotter SC, Tregenza T, et al. The multiple origins of sexual size dimorphism in global amphibians. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2021;30(2):443–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Womack MC, Bell RC. Two-hundred million years of anuran body-size evolution in relation to geography, ecology and life history. J Evol Biol. 2020;33(10):1417–32. doi: 10.1111/jeb.13679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Bielby J, Mace GM, Bininda-Emonds OR, Cardillo M, Gittleman JL, Jones KE, et al. The fast-slow continuum in mammalian life history: an empirical reevaluation. Am Nat. 2007;169(6):748–57. doi: 10.1086/516847 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kolm N, Goodwin N, Balshine S, Reynolds J. Life history evolution in cichlids 1: revisiting the evolution of life histories in relation to parental care. J Evol Biol. 2006;19(1):66–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00984.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Crump ML. Parental care. In: Heatwole H, editor. Amphibian biology. 2. Chipping Norton, N.S.W.: Surrey Beatty & Sons; 1995. p. 518–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Callery EM, Fang H, Elinson RP. Frogs without polliwogs: evolution of anuran direct development. BioEssays. 2001;23(3):233–41. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Wells KD. The ecology and behavior of Amphibians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kokko H, Jennions MD. Sex differences in parental care. In: Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Kolliker M, editors. The evolution of parental care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 101–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Brown JL, Morales V, Summers K. A key ecological trait drove the evolution of biparental care and monogamy in an amphibian. Am Nat. 2010;175(4):436–46. doi: 10.1086/650727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Furness AI, Capellini I. The evolution of parental care diversity in amphibians. Nat Commun. 2019;10(4709):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12608-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Baker J, Humphries S, Ferguson-Gow H, Meade A, Venditti C. Rapid decreases in relative testes mass among monogamous birds but not in other vertebrates. Ecol Lett. 2020;23(2):283–92. doi: 10.1111/ele.13431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Baker J, Meade A, Pagel M, Venditti C. Adaptive evolution toward larger size in mammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(16):5093–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1419823112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Kutsukake N, Innan H. Detecting phenotypic selection by approximate bayesian computation in phylogenetic comparative methods. In: Garamszegi LZ, editor. Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods and Their Application in Evolutionary Biology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2014. p. 409–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Crump ML. Parental care among the Amphibia. In: Rosenblatt JS, Snowdon CT, editors. Parental Care: Evolution, Mechanisms, and Adaptive Significance. 25. San Diego: Academic Press; 1996. p. 109–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Reznick DN, Mateos M, Springer MS. Independent origins and rapid evolution of the placenta in the fish genus Poeciliopsis. Science. 2002;298(5595):1018–20. doi: 10.1126/science.1076018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Furness AI, Avise JC, Pollux BJ, Reynoso Y, Reznick DN. The evolution of the placenta in poeciliid fishes. Curr Biol. 2021;31(9):2004–11. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.02.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Dugas MB, Wamelink CN, Killius AM, Richards-Zawacki CL. Parental care is beneficial for offspring, costly for mothers, and limited by family size in an egg-feeding frog. Behav Ecol. 2016;27(2):476–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Meiri S, Feldman A, Schwarz R, Shine R. Viviparity does not affect the numbers and sizes of reptile offspring. J Anim Ecol. 2020;89(2):360–9. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Oliveira BF, São-Pedro VA, Santos-Barrera G, Penone C, Costa GC. AmphiBIO, a global database for amphibian ecological traits. Sci Data. 2017;4:170123. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2017.123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Blackburn DG. Evolution of vertebrate viviparity and specializations for fetal nutrition: a quantitative and qualitative analysis. J Morphol. 2015;276(8):961–90. doi: 10.1002/jmor.20272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Pyron RA. Biogeographic analysis reveals ancient continental vicariance and recent oceanic dispersal in amphibians. Syst Biol. 2014;63(5):779–97. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syu042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Quinn GP, Keough MJ. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Pagel M, Meade A, Barker D. Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on phylogenies. Syst Biol. 2004;53(5):673–84. doi: 10.1080/10635150490522232 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Pagel M. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature. 1999;401(6756):877–84. doi: 10.1038/44766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Roland G Roberts

29 Jun 2021

Dear Dr Capellini,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Terrestrial reproduction and parental care drive rapid adaptation in the offspring size-number tradeoff across amphibians" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I'm writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by .

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, please expect delays in the editorial process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Roli Roberts

Roland Roberts

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

rroberts@plos.org

Decision Letter 1

Roland G Roberts

10 Aug 2021

Dear Dr Capellini,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Terrestrial reproduction and parental care drive rapid adaptation in the offspring size-number tradeoff across amphibians" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by three independent reviewers.

IMPORTANT: You'll see that all of the reviewers appreciate the study, but that they disagree about whether the advance is substantial enough to warrant publication in PLOS Biology (though reviewer #3 concedes that this is a subjective call). We put this divergence of opinion to the Academic Editor, and their advice was that the advance was indeed sufficient, and that we should give you an opportunity to revise and resubmit, addressing the specific concerns raised by reviewers #1 and #2. To help guide you in your revisions, I've pasted the Academic Editor's comments into the foot of this letter.

In light of the reviews (below), we will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome re-submission of a much-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 3 months.

Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point by point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually, point by point.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type.

*Re-submission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this re-submission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Roli Roberts

Roland Roberts

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

rroberts@plos.org

*****************************************************

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:

Reviewer #1:

This work examines macroevolutionary patterns in egg size, egg number and forms of parental care in amphibians. This analysis seeks to extend a series of comparative analyses already specifically on this group.

The authors argue that "Surprisingly, despite much research, it is still debated which selective pressures drive evolutionary changes in the offspring size-number tradeoff" and then cite an older theory paper and studies mostly focused on amphibians. The problem here is that, with a very strong focus on the amphibian literature, the authors seem to overestimated the novelty of their own work and underestimated the state of knowledge in the field more generally. For example, Lim et al. 2014 is only mentioned in passing but is a more taxonomically comprehensive exploration of ideas explored here (and controls for body size). Similarly, the idea and observation of systematic correlations among offspring size, developmental mode and fecundity goes back to at least Thorson (1936,1950), who showed strong covariance among all three for a range of marine invertebrate taxa - this work is not mentioned. This is just one example, the fact is that offspring size-number covariances have been explored repeatedly across a broad range of taxa. Plants similarly are neglected though seed size number trade-offs have been studied extensively. All in all, this work is a little tunnel visioned, focused on one group, which means the work is not placed in the appropriate context.

The authors then explore 16 different life history predictors and how they affect (co)variance in offspring size and fecundity. My concern here is with such an extensive list of predictors, all categorical, it's unclear how much covariance occurs among predictors and yet many of these predictors are highly correlated. Covariance among predictors leads to less reliable estimates of their effects, this is the problem with a laundry list of categorical predictors. What's more, including 16 predictors in the absence of formal explorations of their covariances means that interpreting their effects is problematic. Overall, with such a long list of predictors, I am sorry to say I have insufficient confidence in the analyses. I suggest the authors consolidate their predictors. Doing so would also reduce the impression that this is simply a pattern hunting expedition - many of justifications for the inclusions of the predictors are weak and insufficiently motivated by formal theory.

Overall, I think these are useful data for a well studied group but I don't think there's much that's new here and it doesn't really change our understanding of the topic beyond what has already been done. I think it's essential that the authors consolidate their predictor list according to the covariances among them and re-analyse their data accordingly

Reviewer #2:

General comments

This is a novel and important study that takes an innovative approach to testing whether parental care and offspring habitat characteristics drive the evolution of the trade-off between egg size and clutch size, and therefore life-histories in general, in amphibians.

Using an impressively large comparative dataset they test, and largely find support for, predictions from theory that parental care is associated with the evolution of increased egg size (and survival) and smaller clutch sizes are associated with terrestrial offspring environments.

The specific novelty here revolves around the use of Bayesian variable rates models that allows the Brownian motion approach (i.e. assuming a constant rate of evolution across the phylogeny) of standard Phylogenetic Generalized Least Squares models to be adapted to account for variation in the rate of phenotypic evolution. This allows the authors to quantify the direction and magnitude of the proposed drivers of the evolution in the focal traits, egg size and clutch size, i.e. parental care and offspring developmental environment, to identify particular branches of the phylogeny where there have been unusually high levels of phenotypic change. The reasonable assumption here is that this rate heterogeneity is likely to reflect variation in the strength of selection as a result of adaptive evolution driven by parental care and offspring environment. Hence, in contrast to standard comparative approaches this allows causation to be ascribed.

Furthermore, the approach also allows the trade-off between egg size and clutch size to be explicitly considered, which has not been done before. In addition, the impressively detailed dataset on over 800 species has lots of finer grained detail on specific forms of parental care. As a result the authors have uncovered some key insights, not least that clutch size shows more phenotypic evolution than egg size, most likely due to the greater degrees of freedom inherent in the number as opposed to the size of eggs, and that terrestrial habitats and direct development have consistently lead to the evolution of smaller clutch sizes and larger eggs but the effect of parental on these life-history traits depends on the particular form of care being considered.

In sum this is a very impressive piece of work that provides a substantial advance in terms of approach and insights. As such I do not have any major criticisms. However, I do think the framing of the work could be better in particular.

Much is made of the safe harbour hypothesis, for example, which posits that parental care evolves to enhance egg survival in harsh environments. The authors suggest that the results largely provide support for this hypothesis based on the positive relationships between several different forms of parental care and egg size. However, there is also a positive effect of terrestrial offspring environment on egg size too. Given that terrestrial environments are deemed to be less harsh than aquatic environments (e.g. page 10 lines 10-12) this is somewhat confusing. As a result there is the potential for a mixed message. I don't think the data allow a specific test of the safe harbour hypothesis, which in any case is somewhat over simplistic. Instead I would be inclined to broaden it out to recognise that ecological factors more generally are associated with the initial evolution of parental care but subsequent acceleration of the rate of phenotypic evolution is facilitated by appropriate behavioural precursors and parent-offspring trait coadaptation (see e.g. Royle et al 2016 Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences for a review). This would, in my opinion, better frame the work and largely avoid getting in a tangle about harshness or otherwise of environments promoting parental care.

In addition, to broaden out the appeal of the paper still further it would also be good to add a little bit of text in the discussion that considers the broader potential implications of the work for other taxa such as birds where parental care is more ubiquitous but where there is less variation in forms of care than amphibians, or in fishes. Is the effect of parental care on the evolution of clutch size relative to egg size likely to be less marked in birds given the smaller variation in clutch size and the greater complexity of parental care for example?

Specific minor comments

Introduction

P3

The first paragraph of the introduction is big on bigging up the work up but leaves many basic Qs unanswered which is very frustrating rather than enticing for this reader in any case.

9-10: for example?

11-13: an example or two would be useful here too.

16-20: there are two proposed drivers, so what is the difference in the prediction in terms of egg and clutch size if any? This sentence is overly vague and unspecified. Having read through the MS I know what you mean but it needs to be clearer up front.

21-22: it is still unclear what exactly it is about the new Bayesian approach that allows causation to be identified. Makes for a frustrating read at this stage.

23: what, even under biparental care? Needs clarification.

P4

17-21: so…? Isn't this a given if we accept that environmental conditions drive egg size evolution and there is a trade-off between egg size and clutch size?

22: are they 'opposite' conclusions or just different/variable conclusions?

P5

5-7: difficult to understand sentence. Rewrite for clarity?

P6

15-16: independently? How does this demonstrate causation?

P7

10-16: very well explained.

18-20: ok, but that doesn't allow you to differentiate between PC and habitat as drivers does it? Would help to have a little further explanatory info here.

Results

P8

14-19: could these be illustrated in a figure? It would be really useful if done well.

21: wouldn't just saying "body size" be more accurate here than "allometry", given that was the term used in the models?

P9

11: by "terrestrial offspring" do you mean both eggs and larvae? It is a bit confusing to introduce a new term here.

Discussion

P13

7-8: this is a really nice point but could you also broaden it out to make some predictions about other taxa such as birds or fish too, for example?

Methods

P15

12-14: how many fit this category? Info would be useful here, or refer to table.

P18

15: wow. That's a lot of iterations. Why so many?

25: is direct development a binary variable then?

P19

1: terrestrial eggs and larvae also binary variables?

Figure 2 - for a) and d) it would be useful to have "egg size" and "clutch size" respectively at the top of the posterior distributions to make it easier to see what is what.

Figure 3 - a) there is crazy amounts of stuff going on here. It is very difficult to make much sense of it without assistance (e.g. highlighting key areas or changing the scale for some of the variables) or simplification. The figure looks good at a distance but it is too complicated in my opinion. b) this is very nice and simple and well explained on the other hand….

Table S2 - some of these variables have very small sample sizes e.g. tadpole traits, so it would be worth noting a word of caution in the results at an appropriate juncture to help interpret the effect sizes, which are quite large even for non-significant results.

Table S5 - it would be good to have a brief summary in the main text at an appropriate juncture of some of the key clades/species that have very high rates of evolution that are given here. It would help to ground the study and make it more interesting and accessible.

Reviewer #3:

In this manuscript the authors analyze the relationship between offspring size and number among 800 sampled amphibian species. They find (as do previous studies) that species that lay eggs on land (including those with direct development) have larger eggs and smaller clutch sizes. They also find that different forms of parental care (e.g. male vs. female, care of egg vs. larvae) can have different effects on egg and clutch sizes, including both increases and decreases.

The authors have assembled a relatively large dataset for this study, building on their previous studies and those of other authors. They also analyze their data using a relatively recent (2016) approach that identifies shifts in rates of phenotypic evolution and identifies the correlates of those shifts.

I think that this is a very good manuscript, and I have almost no specific criticisms to make (which is very unusual for me). On the negative side, I do not think that it is of sufficiently broad interest or novelty for a top-tier journal like PLoS Biology. Basically, it is clearly an improvement over previous studies on this relatively narrow topic, and adds nuance to their conclusions. That is certainly enough to justify its existence, but not necessarily its publication in a top-tier journal. This seems more like a paper for Am. Nat., Evolution, or Proceedings B. However, I will admit that this is a relatively subjective decision.

COMMENTS FROM THE ACADEMIC EDITOR [lightly edited]:

Ref 1 is the most critical reviewer. I agree with a lot of what they say. However, I think what they say is a general criticism of ALL comparative analyses. They use the maximum data available to report correlations between traits. Thus, in some ways, they are purely descriptive exercises. They can be treated as hypothesis testing at one level if one choses to state the direction of the correlation in advance, but a post-hoc attempt to now only look at a subset of predictors would be disingenuous. The authors already know where the strongest relationships lie. That said, the ref is right that the MS can be improved by more clearly stating which predictors are highly correlated and, perhaps, picking one of several that are highly correlated as the 'representative' of a suite of correlated predictors. They are also right that the authors need to better explain why this MS is an advance over Lim et al. 2014.

Ref 1 is focused on the general question which they feel has been answered in marine inverts. Perhaps this is true, but it is common for people working on different taxa to want to test relationships in their group. I think the paper will be of interest to herpetologists and that is actually sufficient to justify publication. (After all lots of bird studies are published simply because someone again shows something in birds that we already know occurs in insects, likewise for marine vs terrestrial). Crucially, I do not think the marine studies cited have the equivalent 'add on' of testing how parental care moderates the offspring size-number tradeoff.

In sum, I would encourage a substantive revision that takes into account the reviewers' criticisms; which is essentially the minor points of Ref 2 and the 'reduce the number of highly correlated predictors' concern of Ref 1. Ref 3 did not ask for any changes.

Decision Letter 2

Roland G Roberts

17 Nov 2021

Dear Dr Capellini,

Thank you for submitting your revised Research Article entitled "Terrestrial reproduction and parental care drive rapid adaptation in the offspring size-number tradeoff across amphibians" for publication in PLOS Biology. The Academic Editor has now kindly checked your revisions and responses to the reviewers' previous comments, thereby saving us a further round of review.

Based on the Academic Editor's assessment, we will probably accept this manuscript for publication, provided you satisfactorily address the following data and other policy-related requests.

a) Please make your title more accessible to those outside the field. We suggest: "Terrestrial reproduction and parental care drive rapid evolution in the tradeoff between offspring size and number across amphibians"

b) Please address my Data Policy requests below; specifically, while we recognise that you’ll be depositing the raw data in Dryad, we need you to supply numerical values underlying Figs 2ABCDEF, 3A. Please cite the location of the data clearly in each relevant Fig legend.

As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

-  a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list

-  a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable)

-  a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript. 

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information  

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Roli Roberts

Roland G Roberts, PhD,

Senior Editor,

rroberts@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797 

We note that your raw data will be deposited in Dryad. However, we also need the numerical values displayed in the figures of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication. 

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it: Figs 2ABCDEF, 3A. NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

IMPORTANT: Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATA NOT SHOWN?

- Please note that per journal policy, we do not allow the mention of "data not shown", "personal communication", "manuscript in preparation" or other references to data that is not publicly available or contained within this manuscript. Please either remove mention of these data or provide figures presenting the results and the data underlying the figure(s).

Decision Letter 3

Roland G Roberts

26 Nov 2021

Dear Isabella,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Michael Jennions, I'm pleased to say that we can in principle accept your Research Article "Terrestrial reproduction and parental care drive rapid evolution in the tradeoff between offspring size and number across amphibians" for publication in PLOS Biology, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email that will follow this letter and that you will usually receive within 2-3 business days, during which time no action is required from you. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have any requested changes.

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS: We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study. 

Sincerely,

Roli 

Roland G Roberts, PhD 

Senior Editor 

PLOS Biology

rroberts@plos.org

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Summary of previous phylogenetic comparative studies on the correlated evolution between parental care, offspring developmental environment, and/or offspring size–number trade-off in amphibians.

    Here, we only report results of variables of interest to the aims of our study.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Sample sizes for categorical, binary, independent variables considered as predictors of egg and clutch size in this study.

    The total sample size of our data set is 805 species, with complete parental care, offspring habitat, direct development, and life history data (body size, egg size, and clutch size). Here, we report the sample sizes for these 805 species for all predictors considered in this study, those in which more than 5 species exhibited the trait of interest.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Variable rates models for egg and clutch size.

    Results for the analysis of egg size in (A) full model, including all predictor variables, and (B) the simplest statistically justifiable model (reduced model) with only significant predictors after model simplification (see Methods, Identifying significant predictors of egg and clutch size evolution). Results of analysis for clutch size in (C) full model and (D) reduced model. The columns report the ESS, the mean and median of the posterior distributions, the 95% HPD interval, and the proportion of the posterior distribution crossing zero (Px) for each predictor variable in the model. We also report model R2, phylogenetic signal as estimated by λ, and model marginal likelihood. ESS, effective sample size; HPD, highest posterior density.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Effect sizes of the significant variables in the reduced model for egg size (A) and clutch size (B) and corresponding percentage change in egg and clutch size for an average-sized amphibian.

    Effect sizes are quantified as the median reduction in marginal likelihood when a given predictor is individually removed and the model rerun (see Methods, Identifying significant predictors of egg and clutch size evolution). The percentage change is computed as the difference between the estimated egg (A) or clutch size (B) when each predictor in turn is present compared to when it is absent, for an average-sized amphibian with average egg (A) or clutch size (B), holding all other predictors of the reduced models as absent. The direction of the percentage change reflects an increase (+) or decrease (−) in egg (A) or clutch size (B).

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Rate shifts in amphibian egg size evolution from variable rates model.

    We report the 19 branches that show exceptional rates of evolution in egg size, relative to the background rate, from the simple model including only body size and clutch size (left column) and the reduced model including the significant predictors (right column; the statistics for the reduced model is reported in full in S3B Table) (see Methods, Identifying rate shifts). Each branch is identified by its descendants. For each branch, we also report the median of the scalar r (see Methods, Identifying rate shifts). These branches correspond to those highlighted in red in Fig 2B and 2C. The blank cells listed under the reduced model are those that exhibit rate shifts in the simple model but not the reduced model, i.e., branches for which rapid egg size evolution can be attributed to the addition of parental care and reproductive ecology variables. The addition of terrestrial eggs, direct development, and parental care variables in the reduced model explains rapid egg size evolution in only 3 branches, that of Bufo valliceps, Eleutherodactylus alticola, and the clade consisting of Centrolene geckoideum, Centrolene savagei, Cochranella euknemos, Cochranella granulosa, Espadarana prosoblepon, Teratohyla midas, and Teratohyla spinosa.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Table. Rate shifts in amphibian clutch size evolution from variable rates model.

    We report the 135 branches that show exceptional rates of evolution in clutch size, relative to the background rate, from the simple model including only body size and egg size (left column) and the reduced model also including the significant care and reproductive ecology predictors (right column; the statistics for the reduced model is reported in full in S3D Table). Each branch is identified by its descendants. For each branch, we also report the median of the scalar r (see Methods, Identifying rate shifts). These branches correspond to those highlighted in red in Fig 2E and 2F. The blank cells listed under the reduced model are those that exhibit rate shifts in the simple model but not the reduced model, i.e., branches for which rapid clutch size evolution can be attributed to the addition of parental care and reproductive ecology variables. The addition of direct development, offspring habitat, and parental care variables explains rapid clutch size evolution in 108 branches.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Table. VIFs for the full models for egg size (A) and clutch size (B).

    VIF, variance inflation factor.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data. Raw data set for the 805 species used in this study.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Data. Pruned phylogeny from Pyron [80] used in this study.

    (TREES)

    S3 Data. Supplementary data references for the raw data reported in S1 Data.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_FINAL.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. The dataset compiled and analysed for this manuscript has been uploaded as S1 Data. The sources for the data are available in S1 Data and list in S3 Data. The phylogeny pruned from Pyron (2014) and used for the analysis is uploaded as S2 Data.


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES