The effect of inbreeding on natural selection in a seed-feeding beetle

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 88-93

  Fox, C W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

Egg size; Inbreeding depression; Selection gradient; Selection intensity; Stator limbatus

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; EGG SIZE; FITNESS; INBREEDING DEPRESSION; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; NATURAL SELECTION; PARENT-OFFSPRING INTERACTION; SEED; SURVIVORSHIP;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BEETLE; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; LARVA; OOCYTE; PARASITOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT SEED; SURVIVAL;

ANIMALS; BEETLES; FEMALE; LARVA; OVUM; SEEDS; SELECTION, GENETIC; SURVIVAL;

COLEOPTERA; STATOR LIMBATUS;

EID: 84871085825     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12027     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ai, C.R. & Norton, E.C. 2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econ. Lett. 80: 123-129.
2. Armbruster, P. & Reed, D.H. 2005. Inbreeding depression in benign and stressful environments. Heredity 95: 235-242.
3. Barrett, S.C.H. 2002. The evolution of plant sexual diversity. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3: 274-284.
4. Berry, W.D., DeMeritt, J.H.R. & Esarey, J. 2010. Testing for interaction in binary logit and probit models: is a product term essential? Am. J. Pol. Sci. 54: 248-266.
5. Bijlsma, R. & Loeschcke, V. 2012. Genetic erosion impedes adaptive responses to stressful environments. Evol. Appl. 5: 117-129.
6. Charlesworth, D. & Willis, J.H. 2009. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10: 783-796.
7. Cheptou, P.O. & Donohue, K. 2011. Environment-dependent inbreeding depression: its ecological and evolutionary significance. New Phytol. 189: 395-407.
8. Czesak, M.E. & Fox, C.W. 2003. Evolutionary ecology of egg size and number in a seed beetle: genetic trade-off differs between environments. Evolution 57: 1121-1132.
9. Demontis, D., Pertoldi, C., Loeschcke, V., Mikkelsen, K., Axelsson, T. & Kristensen, T.N. 2009. Efficiency of selection, as measured by single nucleotide polymorphism variation, is dependent on inbreeding rate in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Ecol. 18: 4551-4563.
10. Denk, C.E. & Finkel, S.E. 1992. The aggregate impact of explanatory variables in logit and linear probability models. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 36: 785-804.
11. Escobar, J.S., Auld, J.R., Correa, A.C., Alonso, J.M., Bony, Y.K., Coutellec, M.A. et al. 2011. Patterns of mating-system evolution in hermaphroditic animals: correlations among selfing rate, inbreeding depression, and the timing of reproduction. Evolution 65: 1233-1253.
12. Fowler, K. & Whitlock, M.C. 1999. The distribution of phenotypic variance with inbreeding. Evolution 53: 1143-1156.
13. Fox, C.W. 2000. Natural selection on seed-beetle egg size in nature and the laboratory: variation among environments. Ecology 81: 3029-3035.
14. Fox, C.W. & Mousseau, T.A. 1996. Larval host plant affects fitness consequences of egg size variation in the seed beetle Stator limbatus. Oecologia 107: 541-548.
15. Fox, C.W. & Reed, D.H. 2010. Inbreeding depression increases with maternal age in a seed-feeding beetle. Evol. Ecol. Res. 12: 961-972.
16. Fox, C.W. & Reed, D.H. 2011. Inbreeding depression increases with environmental stress: an experimental study and meta-analysis. Evolution 65: 246-258.
17. Fox, C.W. & Scheibly, K.L. 2006. Variation in inbreeding depression among populations of the seed beetle, Stator limbatus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 121: 137-144.
18. Fox, C.W., Thakar, M.S. & Mousseau, T.A. 1997. Egg size plasticity in a seed beetle: an adaptive maternal effect. Am. Nat. 149: 149-163.
19. Fox, C.W., Czesak, M.E. & Fox, R.W. 2001. Consequences of plant resistance for herbivore survivorship, growth, and selection on egg size. Ecology 82: 2790-2804.
20. Fox, C.W., Scheibly, K.L., Wallin, W.G., Hitchcock, L.J., Stillwell, R.C. & Smith, B.P. 2006. The genetic architecture of life span and mortality rates: gender and species differences in inbreeding load of two seed-feeding beetles. Genetics 174: 763-773.
21. Fox, C.W., Scheibly, K.L., Smith, B.P. & Wallin, W.G. 2007. Inbreeding depression in two seed-feeding beetles, Callosobruchus maculatus and Stator limbatus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 97: 49-54.
22. Ganzach, Y., Saporta, I. & Weber, Y. 2000. Interaction in linear versus logistic models: a substantive illustration using the relationship between motivation, ability, and performance. Organ. Res. Methods 3: 237-253.
23. Hu, X.S. 2011. Mating system and the critical migration rate for swamping selection. Genet. Res. 93: 233-254.
24. Ingvarsson, P.K. 2002. A metapopulation perspective on genetic diversity and differentiation in partially self-fertilizing plants. Evolution 56: 2368-2373.
25. Janzen, F.J. & Stern, H.S. 1998. Logistic regression for empirical studies of multivariate selection. Evolution 52: 1564-1571.
26. Karron, J.D., Ivey, C.T., Mitchell, R.J., Whitehead, M.R., Peakall, R. & Case, A.L. 2012. New perspectives on the evolution of plant mating systems. Ann. Bot. 109: 493-503.
27. Kingsolver, J.G., Hoekstra, H.E., Hoekstra, J.M., Berrigan, D., Vignieri, S.N., Hill, C.E. et al. 2001. The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am. Nat. 157: 245-261.
28. Lande, R. & Arnold, S.J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210-1226.
29. Mood, C. 2010. Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 26: 67-82.
30. Norton, E.C., Wang, H. & Ai, C. 2004. Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. Stata J. 4: 154-167.
31. Ozimec, B. & Husband, B.C. 2011. Effect of recurrent selfing on inbreeding depression and mating system evolution in an autopolyploid plant. Evolution 65: 2038-2049.
32. Pohlmann, J.T. & Leitner, D.W. 2003. A comparison of ordinary least squares and logistic regression. Ohio J. Sci. 103: 118-125.
33. Puurtinen, M. 2011. Mate choice for optiomal (k)inbreeding. Evolution 65: 1501-1505.
34. Reed, D.H., Fox, C.W., Enders, L.S. & Kristensen, T.N. 2012. Inbreeding-stress interactions: evolutionary and conservation consequences. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1256: 33-48.
35. Roff, D.A. 2002. Life History Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
36. SAS Institute Inc. 2010. SAS/STAT® 9.22 User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
37. Sicard, A. & Lenhard, M. 2011. The selfing syndrome: a model for studying the genetic and evolutionary basis of morphological adaptation in plants. Ann. Bot. 107: 1433-1443.
38. Wright, S.I., Ness, R.W., Foxe, J.P. & Barrett, S.C.H. 2008. Genomic consequences of outcrossing and selfing in plants. Int. J. Plant Sci. 169: 105-118.