According to life history theory, when parents can only provide limited nutrients and care to their offspring, the number and size of the offspring are expected to be ___________.

Question

Which one of the following gets biomagnified at different levels in a food chain?

Answer 1

Life history theory treats parental care and nutrients as a limited budget that has to be shared across every offspring a parent produces. The question asks how offspring number and offspring size should relate when that budget is capped.

Negatively correlated: this matches a fixed-budget trade-off. Splitting one limited pool of resources among more offspring leaves less for each one, so a rise in offspring number goes with a fall in average offspring size, and the two move in opposite directions.
Positively and linearly correlated: this would require the total parental budget to expand every time an extra offspring is added, which cannot happen if resources are limited, so this option does not fit the setup described.
Uncorrelated: this would mean knowing the offspring count tells us nothing about their size, but a shared, capped resource pool ties the two together directly, so treating them as unrelated misses the whole trade-off.
Positively and exponentially correlated: like the linear case, this needs the budget to grow along with offspring number, growing even faster here, which again contradicts the idea of limited parental nutrients and care.

Think of it as a cake of fixed size: cutting more slices (more offspring) can only mean smaller slices (smaller offspring), never bigger ones. That is the essence of the offspring number and size trade-off in life history theory.

Let's summarize:

Parental investment is treated as a fixed total budget.
More offspring sharing that budget means each one gets less, so number and size trade off against each other, giving a negative correlation.

So offspring number and offspring size are expected to be negatively correlated.

Answer 2

Life history theory treats parental care and nutrients as a limited budget that has to be shared across every offspring a parent produces. The question asks how offspring number and offspring size should relate when that budget is capped.

Negatively correlated: this matches a fixed-budget trade-off. Splitting one limited pool of resources among more offspring leaves less for each one, so a rise in offspring number goes with a fall in average offspring size, and the two move in opposite directions.
Positively and linearly correlated: this would require the total parental budget to expand every time an extra offspring is added, which cannot happen if resources are limited, so this option does not fit the setup described.
Uncorrelated: this would mean knowing the offspring count tells us nothing about their size, but a shared, capped resource pool ties the two together directly, so treating them as unrelated misses the whole trade-off.
Positively and exponentially correlated: like the linear case, this needs the budget to grow along with offspring number, growing even faster here, which again contradicts the idea of limited parental nutrients and care.

Think of it as a cake of fixed size: cutting more slices (more offspring) can only mean smaller slices (smaller offspring), never bigger ones. That is the essence of the offspring number and size trade-off in life history theory.

Let's summarize:

Parental investment is treated as a fixed total budget.
More offspring sharing that budget means each one gets less, so number and size trade off against each other, giving a negative correlation.

So offspring number and offspring size are expected to be negatively correlated.

According to life history theory, when parents can only provide limited nutrients and care to their offspring, the number and size of the offspring are expected to be ___________.

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Ecology

Questions Asked in GATE EY exam