Literature DB >> 26424874

Hard and Soft Selection Revisited: How Evolution by Natural Selection Works in the Real World.

David Reznick1.   

Abstract

The modern synthesis of evolutionary biology unified Darwin's natural selection with Mendelian genetics, but at the same time it created the dilemma of genetic load. Lewontin and Hubby's (1966) and Harris's (1966) characterization of genetic variation in natural populations increased the apparent burden of this load. Neutrality or near neutrality of genetic variation was one mechanism proposed for the revealed excessive genetic variation. Bruce Wallace coined the term "soft selection" to describe an alternative way for natural selection to operate that was consistent with observed variation. He envisioned nature as presenting ecological vacancies that could be filled by diverse genotypes. Survival and successful reproduction was a combined function of population density, genotype, and genotype frequencies, rather than a fixed value of the relative fitness of each genotype. My goal in this review is to explore the importance of soft selection in the real world. My motive and that of my colleagues as described here is not to explain what maintains genetic variation in natural populations, but rather to understand the factors that shape how organisms adapt to natural environments. We characterize how feedbacks between ecology and evolution shape both evolution and ecology. These feedbacks are mediated by density- and frequency-dependent selection, the mechanisms that underlie soft selection. Here, I report on our progress in characterizing these types of selection with a combination of a consideration of the published literature and the results from my collaborators' and my research on natural populations of guppies. © The American Genetic Association. 2015. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  density-dependent selection; eco–evo dynamics; frequency-dependent selection; integral projection models; life-history evolution

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26424874     DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esv076

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hered        ISSN: 0022-1503            Impact factor:   2.645


  10 in total

1.  Experimental evidence that parasites drive eco-evolutionary feedbacks.

Authors:  Franziska S Brunner; Jaime M Anaya-Rojas; Blake Matthews; Christophe Eizaguirre
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Evolution of female choice under intralocus sexual conflict and genotype-by-environment interactions.

Authors:  Xiang-Yi Li; Luke Holman
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Strong spatial population structure shapes the temporal coevolutionary dynamics of costly female preference and male display.

Authors:  Maximilian Tschol; Jane M Reid; Greta Bocedi
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 4.171

4.  Scared to evolve? Non-consumptive effects drive rapid adaptive evolution in a natural prey population.

Authors:  Chao Zhang; Eyerusalem Goitom; Kristien Brans; Luc De Meester; Robby Stoks
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 5.530

5.  Epigenetic Inheritance and Its Role in Evolutionary Biology: Re-Evaluation and New Perspectives.

Authors:  Warren Burggren
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2016-05-25

6.  A soft selective sweep during rapid evolution of gentle behaviour in an Africanized honeybee.

Authors:  Arian Avalos; Hailin Pan; Cai Li; Jenny P Acevedo-Gonzalez; Gloria Rendon; Christopher J Fields; Patrick J Brown; Tugrul Giray; Gene E Robinson; Matthew E Hudson; Guojie Zhang
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 14.919

Review 7.  Causes of maladaptation.

Authors:  Steven P Brady; Daniel I Bolnick; Amy L Angert; Andrew Gonzalez; Rowan D H Barrett; Erika Crispo; Alison M Derry; Christopher G Eckert; Dylan J Fraser; Gregor F Fussmann; Frederic Guichard; Thomas Lamy; Andrew G McAdam; Amy E M Newman; Antoine Paccard; Gregor Rolshausen; Andrew M Simons; Andrew P Hendry
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 5.183

8.  The size and shape of parasitic larvae of naiads (Unionidae) are not dependent on female size.

Authors:  Adam M Ćmiel; Jacek Dołęga; David C Aldridge; Anna Lipińska; Feng Tang; Katarzyna Zając; Manuel Lopes-Lima; Tadeusz Zając
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Experimental evolution reveals differential evolutionary trajectories in male and female activity levels in response to sexual selection and metapopulation structure.

Authors:  David Canal; László Zsolt Garamszegi; Eduardo Rodriguez-Exposito; Francisco Garcia-Gonzalez
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 4.171

10.  The landscape of innovation in bacteria, battleships, and beyond.

Authors:  Terence C Burnham; Michael Travisano
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 11.205

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.