Polymorphism in a varied environment: how robust are the models? | Genetics Research | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper shows that a number of models of the maintenance of polymorphism in a heterogeneous environment, including those of Levene and Dempster, can be derived from a simple assumption about the way in which the numbers and kinds of individuals emerging from a niche depend on the number of eggs laid in it. It is shown that for such models, unless selective advantages per locus are large, protected polymorphism requires that the relative niche sizes lie in a narrow range. This lack of robustness applies also to models of stable polymorphism proposed by Clarke and by Stewart & Levin. Excluding models relaying on habitat selection or restricted migration, the only models which may escape this criticism are diploid models with partial dominance with respect to fitness, such as one proposed by Gillespie, in which in all niches the fitness of heterozygotes is higher than the arithmetic mean of the homozygotes.

References

Clarke, B. (1979). The evolution of genetic diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 206, 453–474.Google Scholar

Clarke, B. & Allendorf, F. W. (1979). Frequency-dependent selection due to kinetic differences between allozymes. Nature 279, 732–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Crow, J. F. & Temust, R. G. (1964). Evidence for the partial dominance of recessive lethal genes in natural populations of Drosophila. American Naturalist 98, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Jong, G. (1976). A model of competition for food. I. Frequency-dependent viabilities. American Naturalist 110, 1013–1027.Google Scholar

Dempster, E. R. (1955). Maintenance of genetic heterogeneity. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 20, 25–32.Google Scholar

Gillespie, J. H. (1976). A general model to account for enzyme variation in natural populations. II. Characterization of the fitness functions. American Naturalist 110, 809–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gillespie, J. H. (1977). A general model to account for enzyme variation in natural populations. IV. The quantitative genetics of viability mutants. In Measuring Selection in Natural Populations (ed. Christiansen, F. B. and Fenchel, T. M.), pp. 301–314. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoekstra, R. F. (1978). Sufficient conditions for polymorphism with cyclical selection in a subdivided population. Genetical Research 31, 67–73.Google Scholar

Levene, H. (1953). Genetic equilibrium when more than one ecological niche is available. American Naturalist 87, 331–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levins, R. (1962). Theory of fitness in a heterogeneous environment. I. The fitness set and adaptive function. American Naturalist 96, 361–373.Google Scholar

Lotka, A. J. (1932). The growth of mixed populations: Two species competing for a common food supply. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 21, 461–469.Google Scholar

Mukai, T., Chigusa, S. T., Mettler, L. E. & Crow, J. F. (1972). Mutation rate and dominance of genes affecting viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 72, 335–355.Google Scholar

Stewart, F. M. & Levin, B. R. (1973). Partitioning of resources and the outcome of interspecific competition: a model and some general considerations. American Naturalist 107, 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Volterra, V. (1927). Variations and fluctuations in the numbers of coexisting animal species. Translation in The Golden Age of Theoretical Ecology (ed. Scudo, F. M. and Ziegler, J. R.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar