1989
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.002055
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring Fitness and Natural Selection in Wild Plant Populations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
78
1
1

Year Published

1991
1991
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 170 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 143 publications
0
78
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Can the divergence of the high-and low-flow populations be explained by limited gene flow (maintained by limited gamete dispersal or by incompatible gametes of the 2 morphotypes; Endler 1977, Gottlieb 1984, Barton & Hewitt 1989, Primack & Kang 1989? Kelp spores are capable of dispersing many kilometers from the point of release (Reed et al 1988, Gaylord et al 2002, but little is known about the dispersal capabilities of Eisenia arborea.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Can the divergence of the high-and low-flow populations be explained by limited gene flow (maintained by limited gamete dispersal or by incompatible gametes of the 2 morphotypes; Endler 1977, Gottlieb 1984, Barton & Hewitt 1989, Primack & Kang 1989? Kelp spores are capable of dispersing many kilometers from the point of release (Reed et al 1988, Gaylord et al 2002, but little is known about the dispersal capabilities of Eisenia arborea.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…"Finegrained" variation in fitness favors generalist strategies and slows the selective elimination of genotypes whereas "coarse-grained" variation in fitness favors local adaptation. There has been much work measuring genetic variation for ecologically important characters and documenting fitness variation in natural populations (Endler, 1986;Primack and Kang, 1989). However, the variability of those processes in space and time is less well known, for the obvious reason that the size of an experiment increases in proportion to the number of sites that are sampled.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From an evolutionary viewpoint, it is the differences among individuals in reproductive success that is of interest. Several authors have warned about the potential biases inherent in the use of relative measures of reproductive success, instead of absolute figures expressed on a per individual basis (Wyatt 1980, Herrera 1982, 1988a, Zimmerman and Gross 1984, Andersson 1988; see also Primack and Kang 1989). If individual variation in rate-based estimates of reproductive success (describing the relative success of structures) is poorly correlated with individual variation in fecundity, then evolutionary inferences drawn from studies based on the former may be misleading or even erroneous.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%