A wake-up call for studies of natural selection?

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 30-33

  Kruuk, L E B ^a   Garant, D ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NOTE; PHENOTYPE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EVOLUTION; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PHENOTYPE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE; SELECTION (GENETICS); VARIATION (GENETICS);

EID: 33845690683     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01223.x     Document Type: Note

References (17)

1. Arnold, S.J. & Wade, M.J. 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38: 709-719.
2. Blais, J., Rico, C. & Bernatchez, L. 2004. Nonlinear effects of female mate choice in wild three-spine sticklebacks. Evolution 58: 2498-2510.
3. Blows, M.W. 2007. A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology. J. Evol. Biol. 20: 1-8.
4. Blows, M.W. & Brooks, R. 2003. Measuring nonlinear selection. Am. Nat. 162: 815-820.
5. Blows, M.W., Brooks, R. & Kraft, P.G. 2003. Exploring complex fitness surfaces: multiple ornamentation and polymorphism in male guppies. Evolution 57: 1622-1630.
6. Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 2005. Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. Am. Nat. 165: 281-289.
7. Endler, J.A. 1986. Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
8. Frentiu, F.D. 2004. Adaptive Morphological Evolution in an Island Bird (Zosterops lateralis chlorocephalus): A Quantitative Genetic Approach. School of Life Sciences. PhD thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.
9. Hersch, E.I. & Phillips, P.C. 2004. Power and potential bias in field studies of natural selection. Evolution 58: 479-485.
10. Kingsolver, J.G., Hoekstra, H.E., Hoekstra, J.M., Berrigan, D., Vignieri, S.N., Hill, C.E., Hoang, A., Gibert, P. & Beerli, P. 2001. The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am. Nat. 157: 245-261.
11. Lande, R. & Arnold, S.J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210-1226.
12. Mercer, A.M. & Mercer, P.D. 2000. Cauchy's interlace theorem and lower bounds for the spectral radius. Int. J. Math. & Math. Sci. 23: 563-566.
13. Merilä, J., Sheldon, B.C. & Kruuk, L.E.B. 2001. Explaining stasis: microevolutionary studies of natural populations. Genetica 112: 119-222.
14. Phillips, P.C. & Arnold, S.J. 1989. Visualizing multivariate selection. Evolution 43: 1209-1222.
15. Pomiankowski, A. & Møller, A.P. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260: 21-29.
16. Rowe, L. & Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263: 1415-1421.
17. Wolf, J.B. & Wade, M.J. 2001. On the assignment of fitness to parents and offspring: whose fitness is it and when does it matter? . J. Evol. Biol. 14: 347-356.