Consistent with demographic theory, our results suggest that KLWR population dynamics were driven primarily by variation in recruitment, and that periodic reductions in recruitment led to population declines.

We found that the survival curve and the first month (S1) and first 3-month (S1–3) survival estimates for the wild-born KLWRs [S1 = 0.929 (0.890–0.968); S1–3 = 0.942 (0.919–0.965)] were considerably higher (χ2 = 33.9, 1 d.f., P < 0.001) than released KLWRs KPT-330 supplier [S1 = 0.521 (0.442–0.600); S1–3 = 0.561 (0.493–0.629)]. Low survival rates from predation limited the success of the captive-breeding and release program. This study illustrates the importance of pre-release conditioning of captive-bred animals and the importance of considering reproductive parameters in conjunction with survival estimates to understand the drivers of population

decline. “
“We are delighted by the constructive and thoughtful comments of Knell & Sampson (2010) on our original article (Padian & Horner, 2010). The reasons why so many kinds of dinosaurs evolved such bizarre or exaggerated features are not well understood, and different investigators come to the problem with different preconceptions and favored hypotheses, depending on their training. We all acknowledge that several factors may be at issue in given cases, as Darwin (1859) recognized in his Selleck GSK2126458 original formulation of the problem. But we take issue with some fundamental assumptions that Knell and Sampson raise, which illustrate how academic fields often evolve. Perhaps the central difference is that, in our view, mate recognition is not a category of sexual selection, but of species recognition (because an animal cannot consider mating with another unless it first recognizes that they are conspecific), MCE and because mate recognition does not require sexual dimorphism in secondary characters; whereas, to Knell and Sampson,

sexual selection does not require sexual dimorphism, and mate recognition is a more closely related concept to sexual selection. In our view, Charles Darwin understood organismal biology better than anyone of his time, partly because he thought through problems so thoroughly. In devising his theory of natural selection, he realized that certain living animals bore some salient phenotypic characteristics, such as horns and antlers, that could not be readily explained through the agency of natural selection. He knew that these sorts of features (and their associated behaviors) would pose a threat to the acceptance of his theory of natural selection (because they would be seen as fatal exceptions), and he also understood that these features were not, in most cases, directly relevant to an individual’s survival (i.e. ecologically adaptive). Rather, they helped an individual attract mates or repel rivals for mates. The opposite sex lacked these features (or did not use them in mating).