2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.09.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Population size and the rate of evolution

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
367
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 367 publications
(376 citation statements)
references
References 97 publications
9
367
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, grazing pressure by the co-evolved predator was higher compared with the evolved and in particular to the stock predators, resulting in higher selection pressure on the prey population. Second, the higher selection pressure led to smaller population sizes in the prey at the beginning of the experiment, which might have changed the relative importance of drift and selection and the supply of mutations [46][47][48] . A third explanation for the higher rates of adaptation with co-evolved predators is based on the observation of trade-offs between being defended and competitive.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, grazing pressure by the co-evolved predator was higher compared with the evolved and in particular to the stock predators, resulting in higher selection pressure on the prey population. Second, the higher selection pressure led to smaller population sizes in the prey at the beginning of the experiment, which might have changed the relative importance of drift and selection and the supply of mutations [46][47][48] . A third explanation for the higher rates of adaptation with co-evolved predators is based on the observation of trade-offs between being defended and competitive.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If N e would be consistently smaller in colder areas, populations from such sites should therefore be stronger differentiated [59]. However, the opposite is the case (figure 2).…”
Section: (A) Ruling Out the Influence Of Population Historymentioning
confidence: 92%
“…In addition, linkage disequilibrium will increase (Wright et al, 2005) through reduced N e r (where N e is the effective population size and r is the recombination rate). It is expected that selective effects over the population gene pool would be attenuated because the value |N e s| (s is the coefficient of selection) would be reduced (see review at Lanfear et al, 2013). Therefore, a relatively large proportion of variants would be neutral (that is, |2N e s|p1), and a relatively large number of slightly deleterious mutations would thus be fixed through drift, possibly increasing the ratio of fixed nonsynonymous versus synonymous mutations (Eyre-Walker, 2002).…”
Section: Moving Towards An Autosomal and Paternal Marker-based Definimentioning
confidence: 99%