4.5 Article

Quantitative assessment of observed versus predicted responses to selection

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 75, Issue 9, Pages 2217-2236

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/evo.14284

Keywords

breeder's equation; evolvability; G-matrix; indirect selection; Lande equation; correlated traits; artificial selection; Dalechampia

Funding

  1. Research Council of Norway through its Centre of Excellence funding scheme [223257]
  2. Norwegian Research Council [196494, 287214, 244139, 275862]
  3. US National Science Foundation [DEB-0444157, DEB-0444745]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a selection experiment on floral traits in two taxa of the Dalechampia scandens species complex, responses were found to be asymmetrical and lower than predicted, with genetic drift likely being a dominant source of uncertainty in plant selection experiments.
Although artificial-selection experiments seem well suited to testing our ability to predict evolution, the correspondence between predicted and observed responses is often ambiguous due to the lack of uncertainty estimates. We present equations for assessing prediction error in direct and indirect responses to selection that integrate uncertainty in genetic parameters used for prediction and sampling effects during selection. Using these, we analyzed a selection experiment on floral traits replicated in two taxa of the Dalechampia scandens (Euphorbiaceae) species complex for which G-matrices were obtained from a diallel breeding design. After four episodes of bidirectional selection, direct and indirect responses remained within wide prediction intervals, but appeared different from the predictions. Combined analyses with structural-equation models confirmed that responses were asymmetrical and lower than predicted in both species. We show that genetic drift is likely to be a dominant source of uncertainty in typically-dimensioned selection experiments in plants and a major obstacle to predicting short-term evolutionary trajectories.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available