Banner
    Thank Evolution For Hot Flashes: Menopause Sets Women Apart From Other Primates
    By News Staff | July 30th 2013 10:20 AM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    A study of mortality and fertility patterns using seven species of wild primates (apes, monkeys etc.) compared with similar data from hunter-gatherer humans found that menopause sets humans apart from other primates.


    It isn't that non-human primates are immune from the fading female fertility that comes with age, rather that human females are unique in living well beyond their childbearing years.

    The study compared mortality and fertility data for seven species of wild primates  based on long-term observations of 700 adult females, including capuchins in Costa Rica, muriqui monkeys in Brazil, baboons and blue monkeys in Kenya, chimpanzees in Tanzania, gorillas in Rwanda and sifakas in Madagascar, compared to similar data for the !Kung people of Southern Africa, a human population of hunter-gatherers with limited access to modern medicine or birth control. 

    They say this is the first study to compare humans with multiple primate species living in the wild.

    For each species, the researchers estimated the pace of reproductive decline -- measured as the probability, at each age, that a female's childbirth will be her last -- and compared it with the rate of decline in overall health, measured as the odds of dying with each passing birthday. The results suggest that in nonhuman primates, reproductive decline is surpassed by declines in survival, so that very few females run out of reproductive steam before they die. A female baboon, for example, may live to age 19, and continues to reproduce to the end.

     "Unlike other primates women tend to have a long post-reproductive life. Even before modern medicine, many women lived for 30 to 35 years after their last child was born," said co-author Susan Alberts of Duke University and the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center. But in human females the reproductive system shuts down much more rapidly than the rest of the body. "Half of women experience menopause by the age of 50, and fertility starts to decline about two decades before that."

    What distinguishes a human female from her primate cousins is not that the human biological clock ticks faster, but that mortality is so much lower in humans than in other primates, according to work done by University of Utah anthropologist Kristen Hawkes, who was not an author of this study.

    This study supports that idea, the researchers say. In both humans and chimpanzees, for example, female fertility starts to decline in the late 30s and early 40s. "[But] even in human populations with little access to modern medicine, like the !Kung [hunter-gatherers in this study], most women survive for decades after their last child is born. Nonhuman primates rarely do that," Alberts said.

    If evolution has given us longer lifespans than our primate cousins, why hasn't female reproduction kept pace? And in a world where individuals with more offspring tend to win the evolutionary contest, why shut down reproduction with decades of survival still ahead?

    It may be that older females who forego future breeding to invest in the survival of their existing children and grandchildren gain a greater evolutionary edge than those who continue to reproduce. Once a baby chimp is weaned it can forage for itself, whereas human infants are nutritionally dependent long after they leave the breast.

    "[Human children] can benefit greatly from having mothers and grandmothers who are still alive and not tied up with helpless infants," Alberts explained.

    Another possibility is that mammalian eggs simply have a limited shelf life. According to this idea, we've extended our lives to the point where we've outlived our egg supply. A woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have -- in contrast to sperm, which men produce throughout their lives.

    "Female African elephants seem to give birth into their 50s and occasionally into their 60s, so at least one mammal species appears to have surpassed the typical lifespan for mammalian eggs," Alberts said. "Female killer whales are the opposite -- like humans their fertility peters out in their 30s and 40s, while they often live into their 70s. But there just aren't enough long-term data on other mammals to address the shelf-life hypothesis conclusively."


    Citation: Susan C. Alberts, Jeanne Altmann, Diane K. Brockman, Marina Cords, Linda M. Fedigan, Anne Pusey, Tara S. Stoinski, Karen B. Strier, William F. Morris, and Anne M. Bronikowski, 'Reproductive aging patterns in primates reveal that humans are distinct ', PNAS July 29, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1311857110


    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    If evolution has given us longer lifespans than our primate cousins ...
    So now suddenly evolution gave us longer lifespans?  After years and years of hearing how we died in our 30's if it weren't for the marvels of modern medicine?
    And in a world where individuals with more offspring tend to win the evolutionary contest, why shut down reproduction with decades of survival still ahead?
    What evolutionary contest is that?  Considering that the average woman doesn't come anywhere close to producing the maximum number of offspring that she could, then why would someone ask why a longer reproductive cycle wasn't selected for?

    Mundus vult decipi
    colinkeenan
    My understanding of ancient human lifespan is that they usually lived into their 60's if they made it into their 20's, but there was so much death at birth and in childhood that the average lifespan was only in the 20's or 30's. Modern medicine just gets more of us into adulthood.
    Gerhard Adam
    I would agree, but the numbers are invariably conflated with life expectancy and then some off-the-wall age is bandied about as if that were the average age at which people died.  For example, the life expectancy in 1900 was supposedly 49.

    Of course, that's a completely ridiculous number, because that was hardly the typical age at which people died, but it came from simply averaging unrelated events together to cobble together some number that means nothing to anyone.

    Yet, here are some examples:
    Anthropologist Rachel Caspari said that by examining Neanderthal dental records, her team established that 130,000 years ago, 'no-one survived past 30', which was the age at which they would have become grandparents.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2016759/Life-expectancy-Grandparents-rare-breed-30-000-years-ago.html

    Only 1.5% of people were over 40, and very few lived to reach the age of 50. Old age, rather than life, began at 40.

    Women died earlier than men, due to the rigours of childbirth, so there were more adult males tham females.
    http://suite101.com/article/prehistoric-population-a72827
    So, if this is what has been claimed, where did the sudden change occur to where women lived 30-35 years after their last child was born?

    It seems that these numbers and interpretations change every time someone has a new story to tell.
    Mundus vult decipi