Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PIANKA. On R and K Selection
PIANKA. On R and K Selection
On r- and K-Selection
Author(s): Eric R. Pianka
Source: The American Naturalist, Vol. 104, No. 940 (Nov. - Dec., 1970), pp. 592-597
Published by: The University of Chicago Press for The American Society of Naturalists
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2459020 .
Accessed: 25/11/2013 10:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press, The American Society of Naturalists, The University of Chicago are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Naturalist.
http://www.jstor.org
ON r AND K-SELECTION
TABLE 1
SOME OF THE CORRELATES OF r-AND K-SELECTION
r-Selection K-Selection
Climate .Variable and/or unpredict- Fairly constant and/or pre-
able: uncertain dictable: more certain
Mortality .Often catastrophic, nondi- More directed, delisity-de-
rected, density-independent pendent
Survivorship .Often Type III (Deevey Usually Type I and II
1947) (Deevey 1947)
Population size .Variable in time, ionequilib- Fairly constantin time,equi-
rium; usually well below librium; at or near carry-
carrying capacity of en- ing capacity of the
vironment; unsaturated enviroilment; saturated
communitiesor portions communities; no recoloin-
thereof; ecologic vacuums; ization necessary
recoloniizationeach year
Intra- and interspecific
competition.Variable, often lax Usually keen
Relative abundance ..... Often does not fitMacArthur's Frequently fits the Mac-
broken stick model (King Arthur model (King
1964) 1964)
Selection favors .1. Rapid development 1. Slower development,
2. High ritax greater competitive abil-
3. Early reproduction ity
4. Small body size .. Lower resourcethresholds
5. Semelparity: single repro- 3. Delayed reproduction
duction 4. Larger body size
5. Iteroparity: repeated re-
productions
Length of life .Short, usually less than 1 Longer, usually more than
year 1 year
Leads to .Productivity Efficiency,
100
90
80-
70-
60-
150 50 - VERTEBRATES
140- 40 -
130 -30-
120 -20-
0,110 0
80
m 0
D 0-
z
5O0 INET
42
30-
20
10
-
A.w-7-7- -7I I - x
Sectus
Minnus
A INSECTS
E 0 VERTEBRATES
0.3_
Z Gibbum
O 7rzgonogenius
- 0.2 _
X ASlethomaz/lm
u AMez'urn
Z Co/ondro
- 7r/bo/ium
Pediculus
0.1
4 Pfinus fur
A Furostus
:E P/inus sexpinc/ohls
NipfgMcov
Sclitary Bee
4{; cow *Cod ACicoda MCI
0 365 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
MEAN GENERATION, in DAYS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LITERATURE CITED
Howe, R. W. 1953. Studies on beetles of the family Ptinidae. VIII. The intrinsicrate of
increase of some ptinid beetles. Ann. Apple.Biol. 40:121-134.
King, C. E. 1964. Relative abundance of species and MacArthur's model. Ecology 45:716-
727.
MacArthur,R. H., and E. 0. Wilson. 1967. The theoryof island biogeography. Princeton
Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J. 203 p.
Newell, N. D. 1949. Phyletic size increase-an important trend illustrated by fossil
invertebrates.Evolution 3:103-124.
Smith, F. E. 1954. Quantitative aspects of population growth, 277-294 p. In E. Boell
[ed.], Dynamics of growthprocesses. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J.
Williams, G. 0. 1966. Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton,
N.J. 307 p.
ERIC R. PIANKA
DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712
June 9, 1970