Literature DB >> 21460543

Phenotypic selection in natural populations: what limits directional selection?

Joel G Kingsolver1, Sarah E Diamond.   

Abstract

Studies of phenotypic selection document directional selection in many natural populations. What factors reduce total directional selection and the cumulative evolutionary responses to selection? We combine two data sets for phenotypic selection, representing more than 4,600 distinct estimates of selection from 143 studies, to evaluate the potential roles of fitness trade-offs, indirect (correlated) selection, temporally varying selection, and stabilizing selection for reducing net directional selection and cumulative responses to selection. We detected little evidence that trade-offs among different fitness components reduced total directional selection in most study systems. Comparisons of selection gradients and selection differentials suggest that correlated selection frequently reduced total selection on size but not on other types of traits. The direction of selection on a trait often changes over time in many temporally replicated studies, but these fluctuations have limited impact in reducing cumulative directional selection in most study systems. Analyses of quadratic selection gradients indicated stabilizing selection on body size in at least some studies but provided little evidence that stabilizing selection is more common than disruptive selection for most traits or study systems. Our analyses provide little evidence that fitness trade-offs, correlated selection, or stabilizing selection strongly constrains the directional selection reported for most quantitative traits.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21460543     DOI: 10.1086/658341

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


  52 in total

1.  Evolutionary optimum for male sexual traits characterized using the multivariate Robertson-Price Identity.

Authors:  Matthieu Delcourt; Mark W Blows; J David Aguirre; Howard D Rundle
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Opposing selection and environmental variation modify optimal timing of breeding.

Authors:  Corey E Tarwater; Steven R Beissinger
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Selective consequences of catastrophes for growth rates in a stream-dwelling salmonid.

Authors:  Simone Vincenzi; Alain J Crivelli; Jarl Giske; William H Satterthwaite; Marc Mangel
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Gene Expression Evolves under a House-of-Cards Model of Stabilizing Selection.

Authors:  Andrea Hodgins-Davis; Daniel P Rice; Jeffrey P Townsend
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 16.240

5.  No evidence that warmer temperatures are associated with selection for smaller body sizes.

Authors:  Adam M Siepielski; Michael B Morrissey; Stephanie M Carlson; Clinton D Francis; Joel G Kingsolver; Kenneth D Whitney; Loeske E B Kruuk
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 6.  Quantifying thermal extremes and biological variation to predict evolutionary responses to changing climate.

Authors:  Joel G Kingsolver; Lauren B Buckley
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Natural selection on thermal performance in a novel thermal environment.

Authors:  Michael L Logan; Robert M Cox; Ryan Calsbeek
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Fluctuations in lifetime selection in an autocorrelated environment.

Authors:  Olivier Cotto; Luis-Miguel Chevin
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 1.570

9.  Within-plant variation in seed size and inflorescence fecundity is associated with epigenetic mosaicism in the shrub Lavandula latifolia (Lamiaceae).

Authors:  Conchita Alonso; Ricardo Pérez; Pilar Bazaga; Mónica Medrano; Carlos M Herrera
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 4.357

Review 10.  Quantitative genetic study of the adaptive process.

Authors:  R G Shaw; F H Shaw
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 3.821

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.