Literature DB >> 22547810

Natural and sexual selection in a monogamous historical human population.

Alexandre Courtiol1, Jenni E Pettay, Markus Jokela, Anna Rotkirch, Virpi Lummaa.   

Abstract

Whether and how human populations exposed to the agricultural revolution are still affected by Darwinian selection remains controversial among social scientists, biologists, and the general public. Although methods of studying selection in natural populations are well established, our understanding of selection in humans has been limited by the availability of suitable datasets. Here, we present a study comparing the maximum strengths of natural and sexual selection in humans that includes the effects of sex and wealth on different episodes of selection. Our dataset was compiled from church records of preindustrial Finnish populations characterized by socially imposed monogamy, and it contains a complete distribution of survival, mating, and reproductive success for 5,923 individuals born 1760-1849. Individual differences in early survival and fertility (natural selection) were responsible for most variation in fitness, even among wealthier individuals. Variance in mating success explained most of the higher variance in reproductive success in males compared with females, but mating success also influenced reproductive success in females, allowing for sexual selection to operate in both sexes. The detected opportunity for selection is in line with measurements for other species but higher than most previous reports for human samples. This disparity results from biological, demographic, economic, and social differences across populations as well as from failures by most previous studies to account for variation in fitness introduced by nonreproductive individuals. Our results emphasize that the demographic, cultural, and technological changes of the last 10,000 y did not preclude the potential for natural and sexual selection in our species.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22547810      PMCID: PMC3361384          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1118174109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  28 in total

1.  Controversies in the evolutionary social sciences: a guide for the perplexed.

Authors:  E A. Smith; M B. Mulder; K Hill
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 17.712

2.  Who to include in measures of sexual selection is no trivial matter.

Authors:  Hope Klug; Kai Lindström; Hanna Kokko
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 9.492

3.  Natural and sexual selection in a wild insect population.

Authors:  R Rodríguez-Muñoz; A Bretman; J Slate; C A Walling; T Tregenza
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-06-04       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  The mismeasurement of sexual selection.

Authors:  H Klug; J Heuschele; M D Jennions; H Kokko
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 2.411

Review 5.  Measuring selection in contemporary human populations.

Authors:  Stephen C Stearns; Sean G Byars; Diddahally R Govindaraju; Douglas Ewbank
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2010-08-03       Impact factor: 53.242

6.  Heritability and genetic constraints of life-history trait evolution in preindustrial humans.

Authors:  Jenni E Pettay; Loeske E B Kruuk; Jukka Jokela; Virpi Lummaa
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-02-08       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Fitness, reproduction and longevity among European aristocratic and rural Finnish families in the 1700s and 1800s.

Authors:  H Korpelainen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2000-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Declining fertility on the frontier: the Ecuadorian Amazon.

Authors:  David L Carr; William K Y Pan; Richard E Bilsborrow
Journal:  Popul Environ       Date:  2006-09-01

9.  Fitness benefits of prolonged post-reproductive lifespan in women.

Authors:  Mirkka Lahdenperä; Virpi Lummaa; Samuli Helle; Marc Tremblay; Andrew F Russell
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-03-11       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population.

Authors:  Emmanuel Milot; Francine M Mayer; Daniel H Nussey; Mireille Boisvert; Fanie Pelletier; Denis Réale
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-10-03       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  26 in total

1.  Low fertility increases descendant socioeconomic position but reduces long-term fitness in a modern post-industrial society.

Authors:  Anna Goodman; Ilona Koupil; David W Lawson
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States.

Authors:  Jonathan P Beauchamp
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Men's status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: Effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy.

Authors:  Christopher R von Rueden; Adrian V Jaeggi
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Culled males, infant mortality and reproductive success in a pre-industrial Finnish population.

Authors:  Tim A Bruckner; Samuli Helle; Elisabeth Bolund; Virpi Lummaa
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Food and fitness: associations between crop yields and life-history traits in a longitudinally monitored pre-industrial human population.

Authors:  Adam D Hayward; Jari Holopainen; Jenni E Pettay; Virpi Lummaa
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  The effect of socio-economic status and food availability on first birth interval in a pre-industrial human population.

Authors:  Ilona Nenko; Adam D Hayward; Virpi Lummaa
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 7.  Humans as a model species for sexual selection research.

Authors:  Michael Lawrence Wilson; Carrie M Miller; Kristin N Crouse
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 8.  Using Genetic Technologies To Reduce, Rather Than Widen, Health Disparities.

Authors:  Caren E Smith; Stephanie M Fullerton; Keith A Dookeran; Heather Hampel; Adrienne Tin; Nisa M Maruthur; Jonathan C Schisler; Jeffrey A Henderson; Katherine L Tucker; José M Ordovás
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 6.301

9.  A demographic transition altered the strength of selection for fitness and age-specific survival and fertility in a 19th century American population.

Authors:  Jacob A Moorad
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 3.694

10.  Multi-level sexual selection: individual and family-level selection for mating success in a historical human population.

Authors:  Jacob A Moorad
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 3.694

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.