The effects of competition on the strength and softness of selection

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 25, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 2537-2546

  Ho, E K H ^a   Agrawal, A F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Deleterious mutations; Drosophila melanogaster; Interspecific and intraspecific competition; Soft and hard selection

Indexed keywords

ALLELE; FITNESS; FLY; INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION; INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; MUTATION; NATURAL SELECTION; WILD POPULATION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; MALE; MUTATION; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; MUTATION; SELECTION, GENETIC;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

EID: 84869205207     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02618.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Agrawal, A.F. 2010. Ecological determinants of mutation load in subdivided populations. Am. Nat.176: 111-122.
2. Agrawal, A.F. & Chasnov, J.R. 2001. Recessive mutations and the maintenance of sex in structured populationsGenetics158: 913-917.
3. Agrawal, A.F. & Whitlock, W.C. 2010. Environmental duress and epistasis: how does stress affect the strength of selection on new mutations?Genetics178: 554-566.
4. Chao, L., Hanley, K.A., Burch, C.L., Dahlberg, C. & Turner, P.E. 2000. Kin selection and parasite evolution: higher and lower virulence with hard and soft selection. Q. Rev. Biol.75: 261-275.
5. Charlesworth, B. & Charlesworth, D. 1999. The genetic basis of inbreeding depression. Genet. Res. (Camb).74: 329-340.
6. Christiansen, F.B. 1975. Hard and soft selection in a subdivided population. Am. Nat.109: 11-16.
7. Christiansen, F.B. 1985. Selection and population regulation with habitat variation. Am. Nat.126: 418-429.
8. Connell, J.H. 1983. On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiment. Am. Nat.122: 661-696.
9. Débarre, F. & Gandon, S. 2011. Evolution in heterogeneous environments: between soft and hard selection. Am. Nat.177: E84-E97.
10. Débarre, F., Lion, S., vanBaalen, M. & Gandon, S. 2011. Evolution of host life-history traits in a spatially structured host-parasite system. Am. Nat.179: 52-68.
11. Dempster, E.R. 1955. Maintenance of genetic heterogeneity. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol.20: 25-32.
12. Gardner, A. & West, S.A. 2006. Demography, altruism, and the benefits of buddingJ. Evol. Biol.19: 1707-1716.
13. Glemin, S., Ronfort, J. & Bataillon, T. 2003. Patterns of inbreeding depression and architecture of the load in subdivided populations. Genetics165: 2193-2212.
14. Grafen, A. 1984. Natural selection, kin selection, and group selection. In: Behavioral Ecology (J.R.Krebs & N.B.Davies, eds), pp. 62-84. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.
15. Gurevitch, J., Morrow, L.L., Wallace, A. & Walsh, J.S. 1992. A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am. Nat.140: 539-572.
16. Holsinger, K.E. & Pacala, S.W. 1990. Multiple-niche polymorphisms in plant populations. Am. Nat.135: 301-309.
17. Keightley, P.D. & Lynch, M. 2003. Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution57: 683-685.
18. Kelly, J.K. 1992. Restricted migration and the evolution of altruism. Evolution46: 1492-1495.
19. Kelly, J.K. 1994. The effect of scale dependent processes on kin selection: mating and density regulation. Theor. Popul. Biol.46: 32-57.
20. Laffafian, A., King, J.D. & Agrawal, A.F. 2010. Variation in the strength and softness of selection on deleterious mutations. Evolution64: 3232-3241.
21. Lehmann, L. & Rousset, F. 2010. How life history and demography promote or inhibit the evolution of helping behaviours. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci.365: 2599-2617.
22. Levene, H. 1953. Genetic equilibrium when more than one niche is available. Am. Nat.87: 331-333.
23. Martin, G. & Lenormand, T. 2006. The fitness effect of mutations across environments: a survey in light of fitness landscape modelsEvolution60: 2413-2427.
24. Queller, D.C. 1992. Does population viscosity promote kin selection?Trends Ecol. Evol.7: 322-324.
25. R Development Core Team. 2011. r: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/.
26. Ravigné, V., Olivieri, I. & Dieckmann, U. 2004. Implications of habitat choice for protected polymorphisms. Evol. Ecol. Res.6: 125-145.
27. Roze, D. & Rousset, F. 2004. Joint effects of self-fertilization and population structure on mutation load, inbreeding depression and heterosis. Genetics167: 1001-1015.
28. Taylor, P.D. 1992. Altruism in viscous populations-an inclusive fitness model. Evol. Ecol.6: 352-356.
29. Theodorou, K. & Couvet, D. 2006. Genetic load in subdivided populations: interactions between the migration rate, the size and the number of subpopulations. Heredity96: 69-78.
30. VanDyken, J.D. 2010. The components of kin competition. Evolution64: 2840-2854.
31. Wade, M.J. 1985. Soft selection, hard selection, kin selection and group selection. Am. Nat.135: 61-73.
32. Wallace, B. 1968. Polymorphism, population size, and genetic load. In: Population Biology and Evolution (R.C.Lewontin, ed.), pp. 87-108. Syracuse Univ. Press, Syracuse, NY.
33. Wallace, B. 1975. Hard and soft selection revisited. Evolution29: 465-473.
34. Wang, A.D., Sharp, N.P., Spencer, C.C., Tedman-Aucoin, K. & Agrawal, A.F. 2009. Selection, epistasis, and parent-of-origin effects on deleterious mutations across environments in Drosophila melanogaster. Am. Nat.174: 863-874.
35. West, S.A., Pen, I. & Griffin, A.S. 2002. Cooperation and competition between relatives. Science296: 72-75.
36. Whitlock, M.C. 2002. Selection, load and inbreeding depression in a large metapopulation. Genetics160: 1191-1202.