Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access first published online on June 19, 2006
This version published online on August 1, 2006

Behavioral Ecology, doi:10.1093/beheco/arl010
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/5/857    most recent
arl010v2
arl010v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Maginnis, T. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Maginnis, T. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received December 18, 2005
Revised April 27, 2006
Accepted May 10, 2006

Review

The costs of autotomy and regeneration in animals: a review and framework for future research

Tara Lynne Maginnis 1 *

1 Division of Biological Sciences, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Tara Lynne Maginnis, E-mail: taram{at}stedwards.edu


   Abstract

Many organisms have the ability to shed an appendage (autotomy) to escape a predator or fouled molting event. Despite its immediate advantage on survivorship, autotomy can have important consequences for locomotion, foraging, survivorship, and/or reproduction. Thus, regeneration is a way that animals alleviate some of the costs associated with losing an appendage. Like autotomy, however, appendage regeneration can have important consequences for a variety of aspects of fitness; in a wide range of amphibians, reptiles, fishes, and arthropods, the allocation of resources to regenerate a lost appendage negatively affects somatic or reproductive growth. Previous research into the costs associated with regeneration has provided a strong framework to explore how trade-offs associated with regeneration may have influenced its evolution. However, all research to date describing the costs and benefits associated with autotomy and regeneration have compared individuals autotomizing and regenerating an appendage with individuals that have never lost an appendage. I suggest that for studies of the evolutionary significance of regeneration, an alternative comparison is between individuals experiencing autotomy without regeneration and individuals experiencing autotomy with regeneration. Future work in this direction promises new insights into the evolution of regenerative tendencies, as well as how regeneration may be influencing animal form and function.

Keywords: autotomy; costs; evolution; regeneration; trade-offs.

The manuscript type for this paper has changed to "Review."


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Biol LettHome page
T. E. Higham and A. P. Russell
Flip, flop and fly: modulated motor control and highly variable movement patterns of autotomized gecko tails
Biol Lett, September 9, 2009; (2009) rsbl.2009.0577v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Exp. Biol.Home page
G. B. Gillis, L. A. Bonvini, and D. J. Irschick
Losing stability: tail loss and jumping in the arboreal lizard Anolis carolinensis
J. Exp. Biol., March 1, 2009; 212(5): 604 - 609.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
G. M. While, T. Uller, and E. Wapstra
Family conflict and the evolution of sociality in reptiles
Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2009; 20(2): 245 - 250.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
K. M. Wrinn and G. W. Uetz
Effects of autotomy and regeneration on detection and capture of prey in a generalist predator
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2008; 19(6): 1282 - 1288.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.