4.5 Article

Quantitative assessment of observed versus predicted responses to selection

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 75, 期 9, 页码 2217-2236

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/evo.14284

关键词

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

资金

  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]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据