When environmental variation short-circuits natural selection

By L. Kruuk, J. Merilä, Ben C. Sheldon. 2003

93 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ca2af9cbf9dbded31b59a08055ebe000fca49f8b

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. Francisco Pulido
2. A. Hendry
3. J. Merilä
4. P. Gienapp
5. P. Berthold
6. S. Diamond
7. J. Mills
8. C. Teplitsky

In Genetics

1. Francisco Pulido
2. A. Hendry
3. J. Merilä
4. J. DiBattista
5. S. Diamond
6. J. Mills
7. C. Teplitsky
8. P. Berthold

Citations in the corpus

• Climate change and evolution: disentangling environmental and genetic responses (2008, methodology): “accuracy of this predictive model depends on a number of assumptions (e.g. Falconer & Mackay 1996; Merilä et al. 2001c; Kruuk et al. 2003), namely: (i) h2 and S have been”
• Climate change, adaptation, and phenotypic plasticity: the problem and the evidence (2014, background): “2013) and that the accurate measurement of natural selection is difficult (Kingsolver et al. 2001, 2012; Kruuk et al. 2003; Hersch and Phillips 2004; Morrissey and Hadfield 2012), obtaining hard evidence to conclusively demonstrate adaptive evolution in the wild represents a major and ongoing challe”
• Microevolutionary Response to Climatic Change (2004, background): “…been shown to predict selection intensities and responses more accurately than the classical approach based on the correlation between phenotypic values and fitness because selection gradients based on breeding values are not biased by environmental covariation (Rausher, 1992; Kruuk et al., 2003).”
• Synthetic analyses of phenotypic selection in natural populations: lessons, limitations and future directions (2012, background): “Analyses using predicted breeding values, as opposed to phenotypic values, suggest that such biases may be quite common (Kruuk et al. 2003; Stinchcombe et al. 2002; Scheiner et al. 2002).”
• It's about time: the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection in the wild. (2009, background): “Another factor potentially limiting adaptive evolution is that measures of selection can be biased by the effects of condition, environment and nutrition (e.g. Price et al. 1988; Schluter et al. 1991; Rausher 1992; Stinchcombe et al. 2002; Kruuk et al. 2003).”