Disruptive selection and then what?

Rueffler, Claus; Dooren, Tom J. M. Van; Leimar, Olof; Abrams, Peter A.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.003

Cited by 284 publications

(332 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

319

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The distribution of individual traits can depend, among other things, on whether selection is stabilizing or disruptive (Rueffler et al, 2006). Disruptive selection can broaden the distribution, which in turn acts to reduce disruptiveness, by flattening the fitness landscape.…”

Section: Within-population Trait Distributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limiting similarity, species packing, and the shape of competition kernels

Leimar

Sasaki

Doebeli

et al. 2013

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A traditional question in community ecology is whether species' traits are distributed as more-or-less regularly spaced clusters. Interspecific competition has been suggested to play a role in such structuring of communities. The seminal theoretical work on limiting similarity and species packing, presented four decades ago by Robert MacArthur, Richard Levins and Robert May, has recently been extended. There is now a deeper understanding of how competitive interactions influence community structure, for instance, how the shape of competition kernels can determine the clustering of species' traits. Competition is typically weaker for greater phenotypic difference, and the shape of the dependence defines a competition kernel. The clustering tendencies of kernels interact with other effects, such as variation in resource availability along a niche axis, but the kernel shape can have a decisive influence on community structure. Here we review and further extend the recent developments and evaluate their importance.

show abstract

Section: Within-population Trait Distributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limiting similarity, species packing, and the shape of competition kernels

Leimar

Sasaki

Doebeli

et al. 2013

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…O primeiro caso pode ocorrer quando fortes pressões seletivas fazem com que uma determinada população se adapte a dois ou mais regimes ambientais diferentes (ou nichos), gerando isolamento progressivo das subpopulações e, por fim, resultando em especiação (Rueffler et al, 2006). A revisão da literatura mostrou que a especiação simpátrica disruptiva é, sem dúvida, a mais bem documentada dos dois modelos simpátricos de especiação e a que apresenta o maior número de análises empíricas corroboradas (Barluenga et al, 2006;Bush et al, 1977;Kocher, 2004;Meyer, 1993;Rice, 1987;Rice, Salt, 1988Savolainen et al, 2006;Schliewen, Tautz, Paabo, 1994;Sorenson, Sefc, Payne, 2003;Zardoya et al, 1996).…”

Section: Seleção Disruptivaunclassified

“…Thompson (1988) realizou uma revisão sobre a coevolução entre plantas e os processos ecológicos evolutivos de insetos fitófagos. Esses dados indicaram que a especiação simpátrica por seleção disruptiva pode ser comum para esse grupo de insetos, bem como em parasitas animais, os quais são altamente especializados em relação a plantas e hospedeiros (Rice, 1987;Rueffler et al, 2006). Na teoria, a seleção para encontrar um novo hospedeiro poderia potencialmente conduzir uma população simpátrica a diferenciação e especialização rápida.…”

Section: Seleção Disruptivaunclassified

Especiação e seus mecanismos: histórico conceitual e avanços recentes

Colley

Fischer

2013

Hist. cienc. saude-Manguinhos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apresenta uma abordagem histórica sobre conceitos gerais de especiação e seus mecanismos, a partir das ideias primordiais até as teorias mais recentes que visam elucidar a origem da biodiversidade. Sabe-se que especiação é um tema polêmico e complexo que abrange praticamente todas as linhas de pesquisa dentro da biologia, além da geologia e da paleontologia. O objetivo principal do artigo é clarificar os conceitos teóricos sobre a origem das espécies animais, na ordem cronológica em que foram estabelecidos, ao longo do desenvolvimento da biologia evolutiva como ciência.

show abstract

“…If a one-trait architecture is prevented due to an upper limit on individual locus effects, a two-locus architecture, as studied here, is the logical next alternative. More generally, evolution of genetic architecture and evolution of assortative mating are alternative responses to the challenge presented by disruptive selection against intermediate phenotypes (Rueffler et al, 2006). Often, evolution of one of these responses will weaken the selection pressure for the other (Durinx and Van Dooren, 2009; but see Peischl and Schneider, 2010).…”

Section: Other Genetic Architecturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Responses to these points were provided by Doebeli and Dieckmann (2005). It has also been pointed out that speciation is not the only possible evolutionary response to disruptive selection (Waxman and Gavrilets, 2005;Rueffler et al, 2006). Other possibilities include the evolution of dominance (van Dooren, 1999;Peischl and Bürger, 2008;Peischl and Schneider, 2010) or sexual dimorphism (Bolnick and Doebeli, 2003;van Dooren et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of genetic architecture on the evolution of assortative mating under frequency-dependent disruptive selection

Rettelbach

Hermisson

Dieckmann

et al. 2011

Theoretical Population Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider a model of sympatric speciation due to frequency-dependent competition, in which it was previously assumed that the evolving traits have a very simple genetic architecture. In the present study, we use numerical simulations to test the consequences of relaxing this assumption. First, previous models assumed that assortative mating evolves in infinitesimal steps. Here, we show that the range of parameters for which speciation is possible increases when mutational steps are large. Second, it was assumed that the trait under frequency-dependent selection is determined by a single locus with two alleles and additive effects. As a consequence, the resultant intermediate phenotype is always heterozygous and can never breed true. To relax this assumption, we now add a second locus influencing the trait. We find three new possible evolutionary outcomes: evolution of three reproductively isolated species, a monomorphic equilibrium with only the intermediate phenotype, and a randomly mating population with a steep unimodal distribution of phenotypes. Both extensions of the original model thus increase the likelihood of competitive speciation.

show abstract

Disruptive selection and then what?

Cited by 284 publications

References 55 publications

Limiting similarity, species packing, and the shape of competition kernels

Limiting similarity, species packing, and the shape of competition kernels

Especiação e seus mecanismos: histórico conceitual e avanços recentes

Effects of genetic architecture on the evolution of assortative mating under frequency-dependent disruptive selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About