File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00369.x
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-0036848837
- WOS: WOS:000178922200014
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Reproductive timing and individual fitness
Title | Reproductive timing and individual fitness |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Intrinsic rate of increase Reproductive timing Selection Individual fitness Life history |
Issue Date | 2002 |
Citation | Ecology Letters, 2002, v. 5, n. 6, p. 802-810 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Estimation of individual fitness - i.e. description of the extent to which an individual's genes are represented in future generations - is a feature central to most evolutionary studies. Lifetime reproductive success (LRS) is a commonly used estimate of individual fitness, but because it is rate-insensitive (i.e. timing of reproductive events is not incorporated), it may give a biased estimate of fitness when reproductive timing is an important component of fitness. A review of all empirical studies which have used a recently derived, rate-sensitive estimate of individual fitness, λind revealed that λind ranks the fitness of phenotypes differently from LRS, and that this difference may lead to different conclusions about strength of selection acting on phenotypic traits. However, although λind may be a better estimate of individual fitness than LRS in certain situations (e.g. in growing populations), its application is not always unproblematic. For instance, in contrast to rate-insensitive estimates of individual fitness, the λind is sensitive to the age at which offspring are censused and there is little consensus among published studies on when offspring should be counted. Further, rate-sensitivity does not necessarily improve a fitness estimate in spatio-temporal variable environments. We suggest that the ultimate test on the applicability of λind vs. LRS as practical measures of individual fitness in quantifying selection should come from studies which correlate these estimates with actual number of descendants left more than one generation further in future. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/291603 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 7.6 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 4.497 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Brommer, Jon E. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Merilä, Juha | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kokko, Hanna | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-11-17T14:54:43Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-11-17T14:54:43Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2002 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Ecology Letters, 2002, v. 5, n. 6, p. 802-810 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1461-023X | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/291603 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Estimation of individual fitness - i.e. description of the extent to which an individual's genes are represented in future generations - is a feature central to most evolutionary studies. Lifetime reproductive success (LRS) is a commonly used estimate of individual fitness, but because it is rate-insensitive (i.e. timing of reproductive events is not incorporated), it may give a biased estimate of fitness when reproductive timing is an important component of fitness. A review of all empirical studies which have used a recently derived, rate-sensitive estimate of individual fitness, λind revealed that λind ranks the fitness of phenotypes differently from LRS, and that this difference may lead to different conclusions about strength of selection acting on phenotypic traits. However, although λind may be a better estimate of individual fitness than LRS in certain situations (e.g. in growing populations), its application is not always unproblematic. For instance, in contrast to rate-insensitive estimates of individual fitness, the λind is sensitive to the age at which offspring are censused and there is little consensus among published studies on when offspring should be counted. Further, rate-sensitivity does not necessarily improve a fitness estimate in spatio-temporal variable environments. We suggest that the ultimate test on the applicability of λind vs. LRS as practical measures of individual fitness in quantifying selection should come from studies which correlate these estimates with actual number of descendants left more than one generation further in future. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Ecology Letters | - |
dc.subject | Intrinsic rate of increase | - |
dc.subject | Reproductive timing | - |
dc.subject | Selection | - |
dc.subject | Individual fitness | - |
dc.subject | Life history | - |
dc.title | Reproductive timing and individual fitness | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_OA_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00369.x | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-0036848837 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 5 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 6 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 802 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 810 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000178922200014 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1461-023X | - |