The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations

By Joel G. Kingsolver, H. Hoekstra, J. Hoekstra, David Berrigan, S. Vignieri, C. Hill, A. Hoang, P. Gibert, Peter Beerli. American Naturalist, 2001

1,803 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d6e24216538cfc073b30c77acf0c963ed5979bfb

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. Denis Réale
2. Francisco Pulido
3. N. Dingemanse
4. J. Husak
5. D. Nussey
6. A. Hendry
7. G. Hunt
8. P. Berthold

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. J. Husak
2. N. Dingemanse
3. Francisco Pulido
4. Denis Réale
5. L. Kruuk
6. A. Hendry
7. P. Berthold
8. Alex Mesoudi

Citations in the corpus

• Contemporary evolution of secondary sexual traits in the wild (2007, methodology): “This significant interaction term is exactly analogous to the interaction terms that have been used in the past to infer local adaptation and divergent natural selection (Schluter 2000; Kawecki & Ebert 2004 ).”
• Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. (2006, background): “Selection gradients have become a common currency within evolutionary biology for estimating the strength and mode of selection, and for making comparisons between populations (e.g. Endler, 1986; Hoekstra et al., 2001; Kingsolver et al., 2001).”
• Comparing rates of contemporary evolution in life-history traits for exploited fish stocks (2012, background): “Because background environmental variation is typically not 42 characterized by dramatic or abrupt changes, strong natural selection tends be uncommon 43 (Kingsolver et al. 2001), thus, the adaptation process is regarded as being relatively slow 44 under natural variation.”
• Phenotypic plasticity in a maternal trait in red deer (2005, result): “The magnitudes of the selection gradients on elevation among low-density females and slope among high-density females are notably high when compared with recent estimates of median selection gradients in natural populations, although the standard errors associated with these are large (−0·69 ± 0·18 ”
• The adaptive landscape as a conceptual bridge between micro- and macroevolution. (2001, background): “This form of selection (sometimes called stabilizing or centrifugal selection) was documented in some of the earliest empirical studies of phenotypic selection (Karn & Penrose, 1951) and has been found in many subsequent studies (Endler, 1986; Kingsolver et al., 2001 ).”
• ARTIFICIAL SELECTION: A POWERFUL TOOL FOR ECOLOGISTS (2003, background): “Studies of natural selection in the wild have been reviewed elsewhere (Endler 1986, Brodie et al. 1995, Kingsolver et al. 2001), and another paper in this issue (Lexer et al. 2003) discusses an extension to natural selection studies.”
• Predator-induced natural selection on temperament in bighorn ewes (2003, methodology): “These models use simple statistical methods to provide standardized measures of the strength of selection and can partition the direct and indirect components of selection on a set of correlated characters (Lande & Arnold 1983; Fairbairn & Reeve 2001; Kingsolver et al. 2001).”
• Adult temperament and childbearing over the life course (2010, background): “Given that heritable temperament traits are associated with reproductive differentials, they may be under directional natural or sexual selection, and these processes may bring about quantitative changes in relatively short periods of time, evolutionarily speaking (Kingsolver et al., 2001).”
• Measuring and comparing evolvability and constraint in multivariate characters (2008, background): “The result has been a small boom in empirical estimates of G matrices (Steppan et al., 2002) and of selection gradients (Kingsolver et al., 2001; Hereford et al., 2004), although rarely of both in the same systems (for exceptions see, e.g. Blows et al., 2004; Coltman et al., 2005; Foerster et al.,…”
• Natural selection and animal personality (2005, methodology): “…(Lande & Arnold, 1983) when quantifying fitness consequences of animal personality, as this approach produces standardized estimates of the strength of selection that can directly be compared with those derived from other studies on the same or other types of traits (Kingsolver et al., 2001).”
• What Seeds to Plant in the Great Basin? Comparing Traits Prioritized in Native Plant Cultivars and Releases with those that Promote Survival in the Field (2015, background): “…of grasses, shrubs, and forbs on a regional scale would increase the diversity of genotypes represented in this region, an attractive proposition, as genetic diversity is the foundation for the continued, long-term adaption of populations to ever-changing conditions (Kingsolver et al. 2001).”
• A functional perspective on sexual selection: insights and future prospects (2006, background): “This work is a rare example of a selection study examining physiological variables (Endler 1986; Kingsolver et al. 2001) and it shows that physiological traits (and, potentially, condition) can respond to selection pressures imposed by females (see also Bonduriansky & Rowe 2005).”
• Phenotypic plasticity and evolutionary demographic responses to climate change: taking theory out to the field (2013, methodology): “regression method (Lande & Arnold 1983) and then to compute the distance to the optimum by combining these gradients, assuming a given shape of the fitness landscape (usually Gaussian; Kingsolver et al. 2001; Estes & Arnold 2007).”