2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2005.02480.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Population structure attributable to reproductive time: isolation by time and adaptation by time

Abstract: Many populations are composed of a mixture of individuals that reproduce at different times, and these times are often heritable. Under these conditions, gene flow should be limited between early and late reproducers, even within populations having a unimodal temporal distribution of reproductive activity. This temporal restriction on gene flow might be called 'isolation by time' (IBT) to acknowledge its analogy with isolation by distance (IBD). IBD and IBT are not exactly equivalent, however, owing to differe… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

17
413
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 359 publications
(431 citation statements)
references
References 146 publications
(181 reference statements)
17
413
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Further, in the deer mouse, deviations from HWE and an excess of observed homozygotes at the most prevalent PER1 alleles in both large‐ and small‐scale analyses of sites within and surrounding Algonquin Provincial Park suggest disruptive selection in this area, where small‐scale changes in environmental features (e.g., microhabitats) may drive the selection of particular alleles in slightly different environments. These results would be predicted if there were mice with predispositions to breeding at different times of the year, essentially “isolation by time” (Hendry & Day, 2005). Pairwise estimates of genetic differentiation at our set of neutral microsatellites and the PER1 locus showed contrasting patterns for white‐footed and deer mouse, indicating that diverse processes may be influencing the two closely related species differently.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, in the deer mouse, deviations from HWE and an excess of observed homozygotes at the most prevalent PER1 alleles in both large‐ and small‐scale analyses of sites within and surrounding Algonquin Provincial Park suggest disruptive selection in this area, where small‐scale changes in environmental features (e.g., microhabitats) may drive the selection of particular alleles in slightly different environments. These results would be predicted if there were mice with predispositions to breeding at different times of the year, essentially “isolation by time” (Hendry & Day, 2005). Pairwise estimates of genetic differentiation at our set of neutral microsatellites and the PER1 locus showed contrasting patterns for white‐footed and deer mouse, indicating that diverse processes may be influencing the two closely related species differently.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, recent studies of floral phenology suggest substantial overlaps in flowering time between subpopulations occupying different climate treatments at BCCIL (S. Buckland, unpublished data). Thus, we have no reason to believe that any barrier to gene flow has arisen through asynchrony in floral timing, which could otherwise have facilitated genetic drift (Fox, 2003; Hendry & Day, 2005). We conclude that it is extremely unlikely that climatic subpopulations at BCCIL have become demographically isolated from each other.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With baseline parameter values, the duration of clusters was increased up to 200 per cent when including days with single open flowers in the disjunctions between clusters. Furthermore, our model did not allow the joint evolution of other isolating mechanisms, although some can occur within the duration of the clusters we observed ( Turelli et al 2001;Ramsey et al 2003;Primack et al 2004;Hendry & Day 2005;Savolainen et al 2006;Franks et al 2007). For example, temporal isolation can arise from pollinator shifts or preferences for specific floral traits (Coyne & Orr 2004;Johnson 2006) or coevolution of pollinators and plants (Bhattacharyay & Drossel 2005;Sargent & Otto 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%