stage, such that AL-R at Ov insects had shortened lifespans compared to AL insects. A diet switch from ad libitum to restricted feeding during development extended the duration of the fifth and sixth instars relative to continuously ad libitum insects, but this difference was not sufficient to mitigate the negative effect of FR on adult lifespan. As a result of decreased growth rates, insects that experienced FR at any point during development were smaller at the adult molt than ad libitum insects. Although subsequent reproductive output of food-restricted insects was significantly diminished, mean fecundities differed significantly among treatment groups even when corrected for body mass at first oviposition. Plasticity in adult size alone therefore does not explain the drastic differences in fecundity I observed among treatment groups. Reproductive output may have been mildly constrained by ovarian morphology. Although I detected no significant differences in total ovariole number among treatment groups when a conservative post hoc test was used, I did find significant differences in ovariole number between initially restricted and initially ad libitum insects when a more liberal post hoc test was used. This result suggests that ovarian development in C. morosus is somewhat plastic in response to diet. In Drosophila, ovariole number responds strongly to larval diet (Tu and Tatar 2003) and is correlated with fecundity (David 1970). Although ovariole number in C. morosus appears to be much less plastic than in D. melanogaster, it is possible that decreased fecundity in food-restricted insects in this study is partially explained by differences in ovary size but only for insects that were food-restricted during early development. The primary determinant of fecundity in this study was adult intake, with approximately 83% of the variance in reproductive output explained by the total amount of food consumed during the reproductive lifespan. Because of this strong, positive correlation between fecundity