Literature DB >> 18707288

The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations.

J G Kingsolver1, H E Hoekstra, J M Hoekstra, D Berrigan, S N Vignieri, C E Hill, A Hoang, P Gibert, P Beerli.   

Abstract

How strong is phenotypic selection on quantitative traits in the wild? We reviewed the literature from 1984 through 1997 for studies that estimated the strength of linear and quadratic selection in terms of standardized selection gradients or differentials on natural variation in quantitative traits for field populations. We tabulated 63 published studies of 62 species that reported over 2,500 estimates of linear or quadratic selection. More than 80% of the estimates were for morphological traits; there is very little data for behavioral or physiological traits. Most published selection studies were unreplicated and had sample sizes below 135 individuals, resulting in low statistical power to detect selection of the magnitude typically reported for natural populations. The absolute values of linear selection gradients |beta| were exponentially distributed with an overall median of 0.16, suggesting that strong directional selection was uncommon. The values of |beta| for selection on morphological and on life-history/phenological traits were significantly different: on average, selection on morphology was stronger than selection on phenology/life history. Similarly, the values of |beta| for selection via aspects of survival, fecundity, and mating success were significantly different: on average, selection on mating success was stronger than on survival. Comparisons of estimated linear selection gradients and differentials suggest that indirect components of phenotypic selection were usually modest relative to direct components. The absolute values of quadratic selection gradients |gamma| were exponentially distributed with an overall median of only 0.10, suggesting that quadratic selection is typically quite weak. The distribution of gamma values was symmetric about 0, providing no evidence that stabilizing selection is stronger or more common than disruptive selection in nature.

Year:  2001        PMID: 18707288     DOI: 10.1086/319193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Nat        ISSN: 0003-0147            Impact factor:   3.926


  321 in total

Review 1.  Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild.

Authors:  H E Hoekstra; J M Hoekstra; D Berrigan; S N Vignieri; A Hoang; C E Hill; P Beerli; J G Kingsolver
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-07-24       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Pleiotropic model of maintenance of quantitative genetic variation at mutation-selection balance.

Authors:  Xu-Sheng Zhang; Jinliang Wang; William G Hill
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Experimentally assessing the relative importance of predation and competition as agents of selection.

Authors:  Ryan Calsbeek; Robert M Cox
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-05-09       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Sympatric speciation as a consequence of male pregnancy in seahorses.

Authors:  Adam G Jones; Glenn I Moore; Charlotta Kvarnemo; DeEtte Walker; John C Avise
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-05-05       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  A population threshold for functional polymorphisms.

Authors:  Gane Ka-Shu Wong; Zhiyong Yang; Douglas A Passey; Miho Kibukawa; Marcia Paddock; Chun-Rong Liu; Lars Bolund; Jun Yu
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 9.043

6.  Directional selection is the primary cause of phenotypic diversification.

Authors:  Loren H Rieseberg; Alex Widmer; A Michele Arntz; John M Burke
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-09-09       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 7.  How species evolve collectively: implications of gene flow and selection for the spread of advantageous alleles.

Authors:  Carrie L Morjan; Loren H Rieseberg
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 6.185

8.  The effects of intraspecific competition and stabilizing selection on a polygenic trait.

Authors:  Reinhard Bürger; Alexander Gimelfarb
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Polygenic variation maintained by balancing selection: pleiotropy, sex-dependent allelic effects and G x E interactions.

Authors:  Michael Turelli; N H Barton
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Constraints on the coevolution of contemporary human males and females.

Authors:  Stephen C Stearns; Diddahally R Govindaraju; Douglas Ewbank; Sean G Byars
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.