10/ This suggests the idea that transgenerational effects are can be just a delayed cost of intergenerational benefits. We discuss a TE/small-RNA-based “multigenerational trade-off” hypothesis that could generate these patterns and reconcile previous work. The end.

9/ Result: the genotype with short-term F1 gains but F3 costs can still win and nearly fix in the population, because selection mostly “sees” the immediate advantage before the debt comes due

8/ We then built boom-and-bust population simulations, comparing:
🧬 a genotype with this F1 benefit + F3 cost
vs
🧬 a genotype with no inter/transgenerational effects

7/ Crucially, these patterns hold across matched and mismatched environments!! (starved vs ad lib)
So this isn’t just “good if the environment repeats” - looks like a more general multigenerational trade-off

6/ Then we looked at great-grand-offspring (F3).
Here, the story flips
Descendants of starved ancestors showed:
⬇️ lifetime reproduction
⬇️ λ
⬇️ survival
The F1 benefits are paid for by F3

5/ But their direct offspring (F1) did surprisingly well – regardless of whether they were starved or well-fed:
⬆️ reproduce earlier
⬆️ higher λ
⬆️ better survival in at least some environments
Short-term starvation of parents - better offspring - looks like starved parents invest more per offspring

4/ First, the obvious: starved worms (P0) paid a price
⬇️ lifetime reproduction
⬇️ rate-sensitive fitness λ
⬇️ survival
Reproduced later, produced fewer offspring overall

3/ We looked intergenerational and transgenerational effects of larval starvation in C. elegans

2/ Previous work by others suggested that intergeneration effects can trade-off with other, see for example: elifesciences.org/articles/73425