Literature DB >> 23730749

On multilevel selection and kin selection: contextual analysis meets direct fitness.

Charles Goodnight1.   

Abstract

When Hamilton defined the concept of inclusive fitness, he specifically was looking to define the fitness of an individual in terms of that individual's behavior, and the effects of its' behavior on other related individuals. Although an intuitively attractive concept, issues of accounting for fitness, and correctly assigning it to the appropriate individual make this approach difficult to implement. The direct fitness approach has been suggested as a means of modeling kin selection while avoiding these issues. Whereas Hamilton's inclusive fitness approach assigns to the focal individual the fitness effects of its behavior on other related individuals, the direct fitness approach assigns the fitness effects of other actors to the focal individual. Contextual analysis was independently developed as a quantitative genetic approach for measuring multilevel selection in natural populations. Although the direct fitness approach and contextual analysis come from very different traditions, both methods rely on the same underlying equation, with the primary difference between the two approaches being that the direct fitness approach uses fitness optimization modeling, whereas with contextual analysis, the same equation is used to solve for the change in fitness associated with a change in phenotype when the population is away from the optimal phenotype.
© 2012 The Author(s). Evolution © 2012 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23730749     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01821.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  9 in total

1.  Pruitt & Goodnight reply.

Authors:  Jonathan N Pruitt; Charles J Goodnight
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Hamiltonian inclusive fitness: a fitter fitness concept.

Authors:  James T Costa
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  Site-specific group selection drives locally adapted group compositions.

Authors:  Jonathan N Pruitt; Charles J Goodnight
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Origins of evolutionary transitions.

Authors:  Ellen Clarke
Journal:  J Biosci       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 1.826

5.  The Price equation and the unity of social evolution theory.

Authors:  Jussi Lehtonen
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Group and individual selection during evolutionary transitions in individuality: meanings and partitions.

Authors:  Deborah E Shelton; Richard E Michod
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 7.  Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?

Authors:  Jos Kramer; Joël Meunier
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-04-28

8.  Evaluating kin and group selection as tools for quantitative analysis of microbial data.

Authors:  Jeff Smith; R Fredrik Inglis
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Ecology and multilevel selection explain aggression in spider colonies.

Authors:  Jay M Biernaskie; Kevin R Foster
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 9.492

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.