Back

Asymmetric life-history trade-offs shape sex-biased longevity patterns

Rees-Baylis, E.; Wang, D.; Li Richter, X.-Y.; de Vries, C.

2025-07-26 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2025.07.23.665274 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Sex differences in ageing and lifespan are widespread across taxa, yet their evolutionary causes remain debated. A leading hypothesis suggests these differences are adaptive and driven by sex-specific life-history trade-offs, but formal theoretical support is lacking. To address this, we developed a mathematical model to investigate how such trade-offs shape lifespan evolution in a monogamous mating system. In the model, individuals evolve to optimise a trade-off between reproduction and survival - mediated by mating opportunities in males and offspring production in females. By systematically varying trade-off strengths, we show that either sex can evolve greater longevity, but male-biased longevity evolves under a broader set of conditions - consistent with patterns in monogamous species. This asymmetry arises because female longevity is more constrained: the trade-off between offspring production and survival directly affects the fertility of both sexes. In contrast, the male trade-off for mating opportunities has a weaker indirect effect on female fertility, allowing selection to more readily favour longer male lifespans. We also show that extrinsic density-dependent mortality can disproportionately affect the intrinsically longer-living sex, and obscure the magnitude of this evolved difference. Together, our results provide new theoretical insights into the adaptive bases of sex-biased longevity and highlight the importance of life-history trade-offs in shaping lifespan evolution.

Published in Nature Communications (predicted rank #13) · training set

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.