Artificial selection on allometry: Change in elevation but not slope

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 938-948

  Egset, C K ^a   Hansen, T F ^b   Le Rouzic, A ^c   Bolstad, G H ^a   Rosenqvist, G ^a   Pelabon C ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

Artificial selection; Constraints; Guppy; Morphology; Realized heritability; Scaling; Static allometry

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ALLOMETRY; BODY SIZE; CYPRINID; DIVERGENCE; ELEVATION; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; HERITABILITY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MORPHOLOGY; SELECTION;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BODY SIZE; BREEDING; CYPRINODONTIFORMES; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FIN (ORGAN); GENETIC SELECTION; INHERITANCE; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMAL FINS; ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; BODY SIZE; BREEDING; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; INHERITANCE PATTERNS; MALE; POECILIA; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO;

CYPRINODONTIFORMES; POECILIA RETICULATA;

EID: 84859443370     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02487.x     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Armbruster, W.S., Di Stilio, V.S., Tuxill, J.D., Flores, T.C. & Runk, J.L.V. 1999. Covariance and decoupling of floral and vegetative traits in nine Neotropical plants: a re-evaluation of Berg's correlation-pleiades concept. Am. J. Bot. 86: 39-55.
2. Bell, G. 2008. Selection, the Mechanism of Evolution, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
3. Bischoff, R.J., Gould, J.L. & Rubenstein, D.I. 1985. Tail size and female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17: 253-255.
4. Bonduriansky, R. 2007. Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution 61: 838-849.
5. Bonduriansky, R. & Day, T. 2003. The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution 57: 2450-2458.
6. Borg, A.A., Rosenqvist, G., Amundsen, T. & Forsgren, E. 2006. Presence of same sex individuals negatively affects egg maturation in female guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Behaviour 143: 747-761.
7. Brooks, R. & Endler, J.A. 2001. Direct and indirect sexual selection on quantitative genetics of male traits in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 55: 1002-1015.
8. Bulmer, M.G. 1980. The Mathematical Theory of Quantitative Genetics. Claredon, Oxford.
9. Cayetano, L., Maklakov, A.A., Brooks, R. & Bonduriansky, R. 2011. Evolution of male and female genitalia following release from sexual selection. Evolution 65: 2171-2183.
10. Cheverud, J.M. 1982. Relationship among ontogenetic, static, and evolutionary allometry. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 59: 139-149.
11. Cock, A.G. 1966. Genetical aspects of metrical growth and form in animals. Q. Rev. Biol. 41: 131-190.
12. Eberhard, W.G. 2009. Static allometry and animal genitalia. Evolution 63: 48-66.
13. Eberhard, W.G., Huber, B.A., Rodriguez, R.L., Briceño, R.D., Salas, I. & Rodriguez, V. 1998. One size fits all? Relationship between the size and degree of variation in genitalia and other body parts in twenty species of insects and spiders. Evolution 52: 415-431.
14. Egset, C.K., Bolstad, G.H., Rosenqvist, G., Endler, J.A. & Pélabon, C. 2011. Geographical variation in allometry in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). J. Evol. Biol. 24: 2631-2638.
15. Emlen, D. 1996. Artificial selection on horn length-body size allometry in the horned beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Evolution 50: 1219-1230.
16. Endler, J.A. 1995. Multiple-trait coevolution and environmental gradients in guppies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 22-29.
17. Endler, J.A. & Houde, A.E. 1995. Geographic variation in female preferences for male traits in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 49: 456-468.
18. Frankino, W.A., Zwaan, B.J., Stern, D. & Brakefield, P.M. 2005. Natural selection and developmental constraints in the evolution of allometries. Science 307: 718-720.
19. Frankino, W.A., Zwaan, B.J., Stern, D. & Brakefield, P.M. 2007. Internal and external constraints in the evolution of morphological allometries in a butterfly. Evolution 61: 2958-2970.
20. Frankino, W.A., Emlen, D.J. & Shingleton, A.W. 2010. Experimental approaches to studying the evolution of animal form. In: Experimental Evolution: Concepts, Methods, and Applications of Selection Experiments (T. Garland Jr & M.R. Rose, eds), pp. 419-478. University of California Press, Berkeley.
21. Gould, S.J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol. Rev. 41: 587-640.
22. Gould, S.J. 1971. Geometric similarity in allometric growth: a contribution to the problem of scaling in the evolution of size. Am. Nat. 105: 113-136.
23. Gould, S.J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Belknap, Cambridge, MA.
24. Green, A.J. 1992. Positive allometry is likely with mate choice, competitive display and other functions. Anim. Behav. 43: 170-173.
25. Hansen, T.F. 2006. The evolution of genetic architecture. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37: 123-157.
26. Hansen, T.F. & Bartoszek, K. 2012. Interpreting the evolutionary regression: the interplay between observational and biological errors in phylogenetic comparative studies. Syst. Biol. 61, in press.
27. Hansen, T.F., Pélabon, C., Armbruster, W.S. & Carlson, M.L. 2003. Evolvability and genetic constraint in Dalechampia blossoms: I. Components of variance and measures of evolvability. J. Evol. Biol. 16: 754-766.
28. Hansen, T.F., Pélabon, C. & Houle, D. 2011. Heritability is not evolvability. Evol. Biol. 38: 258-277.
29. Hereford, J., Hansen, T.F. & Houle, D. 2004. Comparing strengths of directional selection: how strong is strong? Evolution 58: 2133-2143.
30. Houde, A.E. 1997. Sex, Color, and Mate Choice in Guppies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
31. Houle, D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130: 195-204.
32. Houle, D., Pélabon, C., Wagner, G.P. & Hansen, T.F. 2011. Measurement and meaning in biology. Q. Rev. Biol. 86: 3-34.
33. Huxley, J.S. 1924. Constant differential growth-ratios and their significance. Nature 114: 895.
34. Huxley, J.S. 1932. Problem of Relative Growth. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
35. Huxley, J.S. & Tessier, G. 1936. Terminology of relative growth. Nature 137: 780-781.
36. Johnson, T. & Barton, N. 2005. Theoretical models of selection and mutation on quantitative traits. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 360: 1411-1425.
37. Karino, K. & Matsunaga, J. 2002. Female mate preference is for male total length, not tail length in feral guppies. Behaviour 139: 1491-1508.
38. Karino, K., Orita, K. & Sato, A. 2006. Long tails affect swimming performance and habitat choice in the male guppy. Zoolog. Sci. 23: 255-260.
39. Kelly, C. & Price, T.D. 2004. Comparative methods based on species mean values. Math. Biosci. 187: 135-154.
40. Kurtén, B. 1955. Contribution to the history of a mutation during 1, 000, 000years. Evolution 9: 107-118.
41. Lande, R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain: body size allometry. Evolution 33: 402-416.
42. Lande, R. 1980. The genetic covariance between characters maintained by pleiotropic mutations. Genetics 94: 203-215.
43. Lande, R. 1985. Genetic and evolutionary aspects of allometry. In: Size and Scaling in Primate Biology (W.L. Jungers, ed.), pp. 21-32. Plenum Press, New York.
44. Larsen, L.-K., Pélabon, C., Bolstad, G.H., Viken, Å., Fleming, I.A. & Rosenqvist, G. 2011. Temporal change in inbreeding depression in life-history traits in captive populations of guppy (Poecilia reticulata): evidence for purging? J. Evol. Biol. 24: 823-834.
45. Maynard-Smith, J., Burian, R., Kauffman, S., Alberch, P., Campbell, J., Goodwin, B. et al. 1985. Developmental constraints and evolution: a perspective from the mountain lake conference on development and evolution. Q. Rev. Biol. 60: 265-287.
46. Monteiro, A., Brakefield, P.M. & French, V. 1997. The relationship between eyespot shape and wing shape in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana: a genetic and morphometrical approach. J. Evol. Biol. 10: 787-802.
47. Mosimann, J.E. 1970. Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterization of the lognormal and generalized gamma distributions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 65: 930-945.
48. Newell, N.D. 1949. Phyletic size increase, an important trend illustrated by fossil invertebrates. Evolution 3: 103-124.
49. Nicoletto, P.F. 1991. The relationship between male ornamentation and swimming performance in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 28: 365-370.
50. Nijhout, H.F. & Emlen, D.J. 1998. Competition among body parts in the development and evolution of insect morphology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 3685-3689.
51. Okada, K. & Miyatake, T. 2009. Genetic correlations between weapons, body shape and fighting behaviour in the horned beetle Gnatocerus cornutus. Anim. Behav. 77: 1057-1066.
52. Pélabon, C., Hansen, T.F., Carter, A.J.R. & Houle, D. 2010. Evolution of variation and variability under fluctuating, stabilizing and disruptive selection. Evolution 64: 1912-1925.
53. Petrie, M. 1988. Intraspecific variation in structures that display competitive ability: large animals invest relatively more. Anim. Behav. 36: 1174-1179.
54. Petrie, M. 1992. Are all secondary sexual display structures positively allometric and, if so, why? Anim. Behav. 43: 173-175.
55. R Development Core Team 2010. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. .
56. Robertson, R.W. 1962. Changing the relative size of the body parts of Drosophila by selection. Genet. Res. (Camb.) 3: 169-180.
57. Savageau, M.A. 1979. Allometric morphogenesis of complex systems: derivation of the basic equations from first principles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 76: 6023-6025.
58. Schimdt-Nielsen, K. 1984. Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
59. Tobler, A. & Nijhout, H.F. 2010. Developmental constraints on the evolution of wing-body allometry in Manduca sexta. Evol. Dev. 12: 592-600.
60. Toju, H. & Sota, T. 2006. Adaptive divergence of scaling relationships mediates the arms race between a weevil and its host plant. Biol. Lett. 2: 539-542.
61. Ushimaru, A. & Nakata, K. 2001. Evolution of flower allometry and its significance for pollination success in the deceptive orchid Pogonia japonica. Int. J. Plant Sci. 162: 1307-1311.
62. Weber, K.E. 1990. Selection on wing allometry in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 126: 975-989.
63. Weber, K.E. 1992. How small are the smallest selectable domains of form? Genetics 130: 345-353.
64. White, J.F. & Gould, S.J. 1965. Interpretation of the coefficient in the allometric equation. Am. Nat. 99: 5-18.
65. Wilkinson, G.S. 1993. Artificial sexual selection alters allometry in the stalked-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis-dalmanni (Diptere, Diopsidae). Genet. Res. (Camb.) 62: 213-222.