Not Just a Theory—The Utility of Mathematical Models in Evolutionary Biology

PLoS Biology

Volumn 12, Issue 12, 2014, Pages

  Servedio, Maria R ^a   Brandvain, Yaniv ^b   Dhole, Sumit ^a   Fitzpatrick, Courtney L ^c   Goldberg, Emma E ^b   Stern, Caitlin A ^a,d   Van Cleve, Jeremy ^c,e   Yeh, D Justin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c NATIONAL EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS CENTER   (United States)

^d SANTA FE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGY; COEVOLUTION; DNA BASE COMPOSITION; EVOLUTION; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; GENETIC CODE; GENETIC RECOMBINATION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; NATURAL SELECTION; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; REPRODUCTIVE FITNESS; SPECIES DIFFERENTIATION; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; LOGIC; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; LOGIC; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84924028204     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002017     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Milinski M, (2014) The past and future of Behavioral Ecology. Behav Ecol 25: 680–684.
2. Barton NH, Turelli M, (1991) Natural and sexual selection on many loci. Genetics 127: 229–255.
3. Nagylaki T, (1993) The evolution of multilocus systems under weak selection. Genetics 134: 627–647.
4. Coulson T, Tuljapurkar S, Childs DZ, (2010) Using evolutionary demography to link life history theory, quantitative genetics and population ecology. J Anim Ecol 79: 1226–1240.
5. Bürger R, Lynch M, (1995) Evolution and extinction in a changing environment: a quantitative-genetic analysis. Evolution 49: 151–163.
6. Hamilton WD, (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. J Theor Biol 7: 1–16.
7. Frank SA (1998) Foundations of Social Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 268 pp.
8. Hillis WD, (1993) Why physicists like models and why biologists should. Curr Biol 3: 79–81.
9. Peters RH (1991) A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 366. pp
10. Wilson EO, (2013) Great scientist ≠ good at math. The Wall Street Journal; April 5: C2.
11. Caswell H, (1988) Theory and models in ecology: A different perspective. Ecol Modell 43: 33–44.
12. Marquet PA, Allen AP, Brown JH, Dunne JA, Enquist BJ, et al. (2014) On theory in ecology. Bioscience 64: 701–710.
13. Polchinski J, (2007) All strung out? Amer Sci 95: 72–75.
14. Johnson N, Lux T, (2011) Financial systems: ecology and economics. Nature 469: 302–303.
15. Haldane JBS, (1964) A defense of beanbag genetics. Perspect Biol Med 7: 343–359.
16. Haller B, (2014) Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives in Ecology and Evolution: A Survey. Bioscience 61: 1–10.
17. Kokko H (2007) Modelling for Field Biologists and other Interesting People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 230 pp.
18. Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano TA, (1985) Dating of the human ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial-DNA. J Mol Evol 22: 160–174.
19. Goldman N, Yang ZH, (1994) Codon-based model of nucleotide substitution for protein-coding DNA-sequences. Mol Biol Evol 11: 725–736.
20. Hudson RR, (1991) Gene genealogies and the coalescent process. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 7: 1–44.
21. Smith JM, Haigh J, (1973) The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene. Genet Res 23: 23–35.
22. Darwin C (1859) The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: J. Murray. 490 pp
23. Muller HJ, (1932) Some genetic aspects of sex. Am Nat 66: 118–138.
24. Van Valen L, (1973) A new evolutionary law. Evol Theor 1: 1–30.
25. Darwin CR (1878) The effects of cross and self-fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom. 2nd edition. London: J. Murray.
26. Smith JM (1978) The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 236 pp
27. Otto SP, (2009) The evolutionary enigma of sex. Am Nat 174: S1–S14.
28. Otto SP, Nuismer SL, (2004) Species interactions and the evolution of sex. Science 304: 1018–1020.
29. Jaenike J, (1978) An hypothesis to account for the maintenance of sex within populations. Evol Theor 3: 191–194.
30. Hamilton WD, (1980) Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos 35: 282–290.
31. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. 545. pp
32. Felsenstein J, (1981) Skepticism towards Santa Rosalia, or Why are there so few kinds of animals? Evolution 35: 124–138.
33. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H, (2014) Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111: 5773–5777.
34. Fawcett TW, Higginson AD, (2012) Heavy use of equations impedes communication among biologists. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 11735–11739.
35. Rice WR, (1984) Sex chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38: 735–742.
36. Scheiner SM, (2013) The ecological literature, an idea-free distribution. Ecol Lett 16: 1421–1423.
37. Hamilton WD, (1967) Extraordinary sex ratios. Science 156: 477–488.
38. Macke E, Magalhães S, Bach F, Olivieri I, (2011) Experimental evolution of reduced sex ratio adjustment under local mate competition. Science 334: 1127–1129.
39. Hughes WOH, Oldroyd BP, Beekman M, Ratnieks FLW, (2008) Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is key to the evolution of eusociality. Science 320: 1213–1216.
40. Gavrilets S (2004) Fitness Landscapes and the Origin of Species. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 476 pp.
41. Servedio MR, Van Doorn GS, Kopp M, Frame AM, Nosil P, (2011) Magic traits in speciation: ‘magic’ but not rare? Trends Ecol Evol 26: 389–397.
42. Queller DC, (1992) Does population viscosity promote kin selection? Trends Ecol Evol 7: 322–324.
43. Taylor PD, (1992) Altruism in viscous populations - an inclusive fitness model. Evol Ecol 6: 352–356.
44. Wilkinson GS, Reillo PR, (1994) Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc Roy Soc 255: 1–6.
45. Wilkinson GS, Presgraves DC, Crymes L, (1998) Male eyespan in stalk-eyed flies indicates genetic quality by meiotic drive supression. Nature 391: 276–279.
46. Reinhold K, Engqvist L, Misof B, Kurtz J, (1999) Meiotic drive and evolution of female choice. Proc Roy Soc 266: 1341–1345.
47. Lande R, Wilkinson GS, (1999) Models of sex ratio meiotic drive and sexual selection in stalk-eyed flies. Genet Res 74: 245–253.
48. Johns PM, Wolfenbarger LL, Wilkinson GS, (2005) Genetic linkage between a sexually selected trait and X chromosome meiotic drive. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 272: 2097–2103.