Abstract
In evolutionary ecology, two classes of explanations are frequently invoked to explain "early life effects" on adult outcomes. Developmental constraints (DC) explanations contend that costs of early adversity arise from limitations adversity places on optimal development. Adaptive response (AR) hypotheses propose that later life outcomes will be worse when early and adult environments are poorly "matched." Here, we use recently proposed mathematical definitions for these hypotheses and a quadratic-regression based approach to test the long-term consequences of variation in developmental environments on fertility in wild baboons. We evaluate whether low rainfall and/or dominance rank during development predict three female fertility measures in adulthood, and whether any observed relationships are consistent with DC and/or AR. Neither rainfall during development nor the difference between rainfall in development and adulthood predicted any fertility measures. Females who were low-ranking during development had an elevated risk of losing infants later in life, and greater change in rank between development and adulthood predicted greater risk of infant loss. However, both effects were statistically marginal and consistent with alternative explanations, including adult environmental quality effects. Consequently, our data do not provide compelling support for either of these common explanations for the evolution of early life effects.