Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-xxrs7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T11:05:29.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evolution of genetic variability in a spatially heterogeneous environment: effects of genotype–environment interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Sara Via
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, The University of Chicago, 915 East 57th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Russell Lande
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, The University of Chicago, 915 East 57th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Classical population genetic models show that disruptive selection in a spatially variable environment can maintain genetic variation. We present quantitative genetic models for the effects of disruptive selection between environments on the genetic covariance structure of a polygenic trait. Our models suggest that disruptive selection usually does not alter the equilibrium genetic variance, although transient changes are predicted. We view a quantitative character as a set of character states, each expressed in one environment. The genetic correlation between character states expressed in different environments strongly affects the evolution of the genetic variability. (1) If the genetic correlation between character states is not ± 1, then the mean phenotype expressed in each environment will eventually attain the optimum value for that environment; this is the evolution of phenotypic plasticity (Via & Lande, 1985). At the joint phenotypic optimum, there is no disruptive selection between environments and thus no increase in the equilibrium genetic variability over that maintained by a balance between mutation and stabilizing selection within each environment. (2) If, however, the genetic correlation between character states is ± 1, the mean phenotype will not evolve to the joint phenotypic optimum and a persistent force of disruptive selection between environments will increase the equilibrium genetic variance. (3) Numerical analyses of the dynamic equations indicate that the mean phenotype can usually be perturbed several phenotypic standard deviations from the optimum without producing transient changes of more than a few per cent in the genetic variances or correlations. It may thus be reasonable to assume a roughly constant covariance structure during phenotypic evolution unless genetic correlations among character states are extremely high or populations are frequently perturbed. (4) Transient changes in the genetic correlations between character states resulting from disruptive selection act to constrain the evolution of the mean phenotype rather than to facilitate it.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

References

Bradshaw, A. D. (1965). Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Advances in Genetics 13, 115155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulmer, M. G. (1971). Stable equilibrium under the two-island model. Heredity 27, 321330.Google Scholar
Bulmer, M. G. (1980). The Mathematical Theory of Quantitative Genetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Christiansen, F. B. (1975). Hard and soft selection in a subdivided population. American Naturalist 109, 1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1952). The problem of environment and selection. American Naturalist 86, 293298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1981). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 2nd edn.New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. (1976). The theoretical population genetics of variable selection and migration. Annual Reviews of Genetics 10, 253280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felsenstein, J. (1977). Multivariate normal genetic models with a finite number of loci. Proceedings, International Conference on Quantitative Genetics (ed. Pollak, E., Kempthorne, O. and Bailey, T. B.), pp. 227246. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. (1979). Excursions along the interface between disruptive and stabilizing selection. Genetics 93, 773795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernando, R. L., Knights, S. A. & Gianola, D. (1984). On a method of estimating the genetic correlation between characters measured in different experimental units. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 67, 175178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedrick, P. W., Ginevan, M. E. & Ewing, E. P. (1976). Genetic polymorphism in heterogenous environments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 7, 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R. (1977). The influence of the mating system on the maintenance of genetic variability in polygenic characters. Genetics 86, 485498.Google Scholar
Lande, R. (1979). Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain: body size allometry. Evolution 33, 402416.Google ScholarPubMed
Lande, R. (1980). The genetic covariance between characters maintained by pleiotropic mutations. Genetics 94, 203215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lande, R. (1984). The genetic correlation between characters maintained by selection, linkage and inbreeding. Genetical Research 44, 309320.Google Scholar
Levene, H. (1953). Genetic equilibrium when more than one ecological niche is available. American Naturalist 87, 331333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. (1959). The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15, 469485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, R. G. (1986). Response to density in a wild population of the perennial herb Salvia lyrata: variation among families. Evolution 40, 492505.Google Scholar
Slatkin, M. (1978). Spatial patterns in the distributions of polygenic characters. Journal of Theoretical Biology 70, 213228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turelli, M. (1984). Heritable genetic variation via mutation–selection balance: Lerch's zeta meets the abdominal bristle. Theoretical Population Biology 25, 138193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Via, S. (1984 a). The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. I. Genotype–environment interaction in larval performance on different host plant species. Evolution 38, 881895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Via, S. (1984 b). The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. II. Genetic correlations in larval performance within and among host plants. Evolution 38, 896905.Google Scholar
Via, S. & Lande, R. (1985). Genotype–environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39, 505522.Google Scholar
Weber, G. (1985). Genetic variability in host plant adaptation of the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata 38, 4956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamada, Y. (1962). Genotype × environment interaction and genetic correlation of the same trait under different environments. Japanese Journal of Genetics 37, 498509.Google Scholar