Patterns and Power of Phenotypic Selection in Nature

By Joel G. Kingsolver, D. Pfennig. 2007

268 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1d673d3c2093f2070e593386be87b1c4af53ae34

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. J. Husak
2. Jerry J. Meyers
3. J. Galliard
4. J. Wingfield
5. A. Lappin
6. R. A. Van Den Bussche
7. C. Herrera
8. G. Hunt

In Genetics

1. J. Husak
2. G. Hunt
3. C. Herrera
4. A. Lappin
5. R. A. Van Den Bussche
6. Jerry J. Meyers
7. J. Wingfield
8. R. Huey

Citations in the corpus

• Size, temperature, and fitness: Three rules (2008, background): “Using this database, we can compare the strength of directional selection on aspects of overall body size (91 selection estimates from 24 studies) to that on other morphological traits (763 estimates from 38 studies) (Kingsolver and Pfennig, 2004, 2007) .”
• The fitness advantage of a high‐performance weapon (2009, result): “This allows comparisons with other studies to examine the strength and direction of selection in nature (Kingsolver et al., 2001; Kingsolver & Pfennig, 2007; Irschick et al., 2008).”
• Synthetic analyses of phenotypic selection in natural populations: lessons, limitations and future directions (2012, background): “In addition, large values of meanstandardized b are consistently associated with small values of the coefficient of variation (CV), the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean of the trait (Kingsolver and Pfennig 2007).”
• Measuring rates of phenotypic evolution and the inseparability of tempo and mode (2012, background): “…are routinely two to five times higher than these predicted rates, even though the compilation of selection coefficients should be systematically biased in favor of strong selection (Kingsolver et al. 2001; Hersch and Phillips 2004; Kingsolver and Pfennig 2007; but see Knapczyk and Conner 2007).”
• The ecology of subindividual variability in plants: patterns, processes, and prospects (2017, background): “More explicit tests, however, can be undertaken by expanding phenotypic selection models developed for evaluating selection on quantitative traits (Kingsolver and Pfennig, 2007) to incorporate subindividual variabilities just as another set of descriptors of a plant’s phenotype in addition to…”
• Do baseline glucocorticoids predict fitness? (2009, background): “Measuring fitness correlates of trait variants can be difficult for a variety of reasons [38, 41 ].”
• How does selection operate on whole-organism functional performance capacities? A review and synthesis (2008, background): “First, as noted by others (Kingsolver and Pfenning, 2007), there is a need for long-term studies of selection, and this statement is especially important for performance traits.”
• Bridging the gap between the genotype and the phenotype: linking genetic variation, selection and adaptation in fishes (2008, background): “Third, the multivariate selection gradient b provides a means of estimating the strength of selection and determining whether different traits experience similar levels and types of selection (Kingsolver and Pfennig 2007).”