Maternal mortality remains one of the leading causes of death in women of reproductive age in developing countries, and a major concern in some developed countries. It is puzzling why such a condition has not been reduced in frequency, if not eliminated, in the course of evolution. Maternal mortality is a complex phenomenon caused by several physiological and physical factors. Among the physical factors, maternal mortality due to fetopelvic disproportion remains controversial. Several explanations including evolution of bipedal locomotion, rapid brain growth, and nutritional changes and life style changes in settler communities have been proposed. The influences of human reproductive biology and sexual selection have rarely been considered to explain why maternal mortality persisted through human evolution. We entertain the hypothesis that irrespective of the causes, the risks of all factors causing maternal mortality would be aggravated by disassortative mating, specifically male preference for younger females who are generally small statured and at higher risk of obstetric complications. Maternal mortality arising due to sexual selection and mate choice would have the long-term effect of driving widowers toward younger women, often resulting in “child marriage,” which still remains a significant cause of maternal mortality globally. Evolutionarily, such a male driven mating system in polygamous human populations would have prolonged the persistence of maternal mortality despite selection acting against it. The effects may extend beyond maternal mortality because male-mate choice driven maternal mortality would reduce average reproductive life spans of women, thus influencing the evolution of menopause.
BhuttaZBlackER. Global maternal, newborn, and child health—so near and yet so far. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(23):2226–2235.
2.
ChamberlainG. British maternal mortality in the 19th and early 20th centuries. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(11):559–563.
3.
LoudonI. Maternal mortality in the past and its relevance to developing countries today. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;72(suppl 1):241S–246 S.
4.
WHO. World Health Statistics. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2012.
5.
AnderssonTBergstromSHogbergU. Swedish maternal mortality in the nineteenth century by different definitions: previous stillbirths but not multiparity risk factor for maternal death. Acta Obs Gyn Scan. 2000;79(8):679–687.
6.
De BrouwereV. The comparative study of maternal mortality over time: the role of professionalization of childbirth. Soc Hist Med. 2007;20(3):541–562.
7.
LoudonI. Maternal mortality: 1880-1950. Some regional and international comparisons. Soc Hist Med. 1988;1(2):183–228.
8.
LoudonI. On maternal and infant mortality, 1900-1960. Soc Hist Med. 1991;4(1):29–73.
9.
KlasenS.Marriage, bargaining, and intrahousehold resource allocation: excess female mortality among adults in early German development. J Econ Hist. 1998;58(2):432–467.
10.
WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, Bank TW. Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015.
11.
HennBMCavalli SforzaLFeldmanMW. The great human expansion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(44):17758–17764.
12.
DoleaCAbouZahrC. Global Burden of Obstructed Labour in the Year 2000. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003.
13.
KwastBE. Obstructed labour: its contribution to maternal mortality. Midwifery. 1992;8(1):3–7.
SayLChouDGemmillA. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6): e323–e333.
16.
FantuSSegniHAlemsegedF. Incidence, causes and outcome of obstructed labor in Jimma University specialized hospital. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2010;20(3):145–151.
17.
Saving Mothers 2005-2007: Fourth report on confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in south Africa. Expanded Executive Summary; Department of Health Annual Report, Republic of South Africa, Johannesburg2008.
18.
LovejoyCO. The natural history of human gait and posture. Part 1. Spine and pelvis. Gait Posture. 2005;21(1):95–112.
19.
RosenbergK. Tehe evolution of modern childbrith. Yearb Phys Anthropol. 1992;35(S15):89–124.
20.
WashburnSL. Tools and human evolution. Sci Am. 1960;203:63–75.
21.
RosenbergKTrevathanW. Bipedalism and human birth: the obstetric dilemma. Evol Anthropol. 1996;4(5):161–168.
22.
TrevathanWR. Human Birth: An Evolutionary Perspective. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 2011.
23.
GrabowskiMRosemanCC. Complex and changing patterns of natural selection explain the evolution of the human hip. J Hum Evol. 2015;85:94–110.
24.
DunsworthHEcclestonL. The evolution of difficult childbirth and helpless hominin infants. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2015;44:55–69.
25.
WellsJCDeSilvaJMStockJT. The obstetric dilemma: an ancient game of Russian roulette, or a variable dilemma sensitive to ecology?Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012;149(suppl 55):40–71.
26.
PlavcanJM. Implications of male and female contributions to sexual size dimorphism for inferring behavior in the hominin fossil record. Int J Primatol. 2012;33:1364–1381.
27.
CorreiaHBalseiroSDe AreiaM. Sexual dimorphism in the human pelvis: testing a new hypothesis. HOMO. 2005;56(2):153–160.
28.
LovejoyCO. Reexamining human origins in light of Ardipithecus ramidus. Science. 2009;326(5949):74e71–74e78.
29.
DeSilvaJM. A shift toward birthing relatively large infants early in human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108(3):1022–1027.
30.
MummertAEscheERobinsonJArmelagosGJ. Stature and robusticity during the agricultural transition: evidence from the bioarchaeological record. Econ Hum Biol. 2011;9(3):284–301.
31.
WellsJC. Between Scylla and Charybdis: renegotiating resolution of the ‘obstetric dilemma’ in response to ecological change. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2015;370(1663):20140067.
32.
MitteroeckerPWindhagerSPavlicevM. Cliff-edge model predicts intergenerational predisposition to dystocia and caesarean delivery. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(44):11669–11672.
33.
LandeRArnoldSJ. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution. 1983;37(6):1210–1226.
34.
HoskenDJHouseCM. Sexual selection. Curr Biol. 2011;21(2): R62–R65.
35.
ArnqvistGRoweL. Sexual Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2005.
36.
ConnallonTCoxRMCalsbeekR. Fitness consequences of sex-specific selection. Evolution. 2010;64(6):1671–1682.
37.
WhitlockMCAgrawalAF. Purging the genome with sexual selection: reducing mutation load through selection on males. Evolution. 2009;63(3):569–582.
38.
AnderssonMB. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1994.
39.
GeuganJFTeriokhinATThomasF. Human fertility variation, size-related obstetrical performance and the evolution of sexual stature dimorphism. Proc Biol Sci. 2000;267(1461):2529–2535.
40.
StulpGVerhulstSPolletTVNettleDBuunkAP. Parental height differences predict the need for an emergency cesarean section. PLoS One. 2011;6(6): e20497.
41.
MitteroeckerPHutteggerSMFischerBPavlicevM. Cliff-edge model of obstetric selection in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(51):14680–14685.
42.
KlebanoffMAMednickBRSchulsingerCSecherNJShionoPH. Father’s effect on infant birth weight. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:1022–1026.
43.
KnightBShieldsBMTurnerMPowellRJYajnikCSHattersleyAT. Evidence of genetic regulation of fetal longitudinal growth. Early Hum Dev. 2005;81(10):823–831.
44.
LearySFallCOsmondC. Geographical variation in relationships between parental body size and offspring phenotype at birth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(9):1066–1079.
45.
MorrisonJWilliamsGMNajmanJMAndersenMJ. The influence of paternal height and weight on birth-weight. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;31(2):114–116.
46.
ShahPS. Paternal factors and low birthweight, preterm, and small for gestational age births: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(20):103–123.
47.
Mascie-TaylorCGNBoldsenJL. Assortative mating, differential fertility and abnormal pregnancy outcome. Ann Hum Biol. 1988;15(3):223–228.
48.
MitteroeckerPFischerB. Adult pelvic shape change is an evolutionary side effect. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(26): E3596.
49.
PawlowskiB. Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in height as a strategy for increasing the pool of potential partners in humans. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2003;270(1516):709–712.
50.
PawowskiBDunbarRIMLipowiczA. Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature. 2000;403(6766):156–157.
51.
YanceyGEmersonMO. Does height matter? An examination of height preferences in romantic coupling. J Fam Issues. 2016;37(1):53–73.
52.
SorokowskiPButovskayaM. Height preferences in humans may not be universal: evidence from the datoga people of Tanzania. Body Image. 2012;9(4):510–516.
53.
PlavcanJM. Understanding dimorphism as a function of changes in male and female traits. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 2011;20(4):143–155.
54.
HuseynovAZollikoferCPCoudyzerW. Developmental evidence for obstetric adaptation of the human female pelvis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(19):5227–5232.
55.
BettiL. Human variation in pelvic shape and the effects of climate and past population history. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2017;300(4):687–697.
56.
PatriquinMSteynMLothS. Metric analysis of sex differences in South African black and white pelves. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;147(2-3):119–127.
57.
RuffC. Mechanical constraints on the hominin pelvis and the “obstetrical dilemma”. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2017;300(5):946–955.
58.
RuffCB. Morphological adaptation to climate in modern and fossil hominids. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1994;37(S19):65–107.
59.
GanchimegTOtaEMorisakiN. Pregnancy and childbirth outcomes among adolescent mothers: a World Health Organization Multicountry Study. BJOG. 2014;121(suppl 1):40–48.
60.
MalabareyOTBayalaJAbenhaimHA. The effect of pelvic size on Cesarean delivery rates: using adolescent maternal age as an unbiased proxy for pelvic size. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2012;25(3):190–194.
61.
ClarkJFWestneyLSLawyerCJ. Adolescent pregnancy: a 25-year review. J Natl Med Assoc. 1987;79(4):377.
62.
PereiraLLiraPJAhuedARQuesnelGBCIturraldeRPPArteagaGC. Maternal morbidity in adolescent pregnancy. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2002;70:270–274.
TagueRG. Maternal mortality or prolonged growth: age at death and pelvic size in three prehistoric Amerindian populations. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1994;95(1):27–40.
65.
VolgyiETylavskyFAXuL. Bone and body segment lengthening and widening: a 7-year follow-up study in pubertal girls. Bone. 2010;47(4):773–782.
66.
SharmaKGuptaPShandilyaS. Age related changes in pelvis size among adolescent and adult females with reference to parturition from Naraingarh, Haryana (India). HOMO. 2016;67(4):273–293.
67.
PattonGCCoffeyCSawyerSM. Global patterns of mortality in young people: a systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet. 2009;374(9693):881–892.
68.
PutsDA. Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evol Hum Behav. 2010;31(3):157–175.
69.
AntfolkJSaloBAlankoK. Women’s and men’s sexual preferences and activities with respect to the partner’s age: evidence for female choice. Evol Hum Behav. 2015;36(1):73–79.
70.
BussDM. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci. 1989;12(1):1–49.
71.
BussDMAbbottMAngleitnerA. International preferences in selecting mates a study of 37 cultures. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1990;21(1):5–47.
72.
BussDMShackelfordTKLeBlancGJ. Number of children desired and preferred spousal age difference: context-specific mate preference patterns across 37 cultures. Evol Hum Behav. 2000;21(5):323–331.
73.
DunnMJBrintonSClarkL. Universal sex differences in online advertisers age preferences: comparing data from 14 cultures and 2 religious groups. Evol Hum Behav. 2010;31(6):383–393.
74.
OttaEda Silva QueirozRde Sousa CamposLda SilvaMWDSilveiraMT. Age differences between spouses in a Brazilian marriage sample. Evol Hum Behav. 1999;20(2):99–103.
75.
UNICEF. Child marraige: progress and prospects. In UNICEF (Ed.), UNICEF. New York, NY: UNICEF; 2014.
76.
NealSMatthewsZFrostMFogstadHCamachoAVLaskiL. Childbearing in adolescents aged 12-15 years in low resource countries: a neglected issue. New estimates from demographic and household surveys in 42 countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91(9):1114–1118.
77.
GurvenMKaplanH. Longevity among hunter-gatherers: a cross-cultural examination. Popul Dev Rev. 2007;33(2):321–365.
78.
TuljapurkarSDPulestonCOGurvenMD. Why men matter: mating patterns drive evolution of human lifespan. PLoS One. 2007;2(8): e785.
79.
MortonRAStoneJRSinghRS. Mate choice and the origin of menopause. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(6): e1003092.
80.
NelsonERolianCCashmoreLShultzS. Digit ratios predict polygyny in early apes, Ardipithecus, Neanderthals and early modern humans but not in Australopithecus. Proc Biol Sci. 2011;278(1711):1556–1563.
81.
GavriletsS. Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(25):9923–9928.
82.
DunbarRLehmannJKorstjensAHGowlettJ. The road to modern humans: time budgets, fission-fusion sociality, kinship and the division of labour in hominin evolution. In: DunbarRIMGambleCGowlettJAJ. Lucy to Language: the Benchmark Papers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014:333.
83.
ParkerST. A sexual selection model for hominid evolution. J Hum Evol. 1987;2(3):235–253.
BetzigLLMulderMBTurkeP.Human reproductive behaviour: a Darwinian perspective. Cambridge, England: CUP Archive; 1988.
86.
HenrichJBoydRRichersonPJ. The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2012;367(1589):657–669.
87.
ScheidelW. A peculiar institution? Greco ÄìRoman monogamy in global context. The History of the Family. 2009;14(3):280–291.
88.
JokelaMRotkirchARickardIJPettayJLummaaV. Serial monogamy increases reproductive success in men but not in women. Behav Ecol. 2010;21(5):906–912.
