Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorPelabon, Christophe
dc.contributor.authorAlbertsen, Elena
dc.contributor.authorLe Rouzic, Arnaud
dc.contributor.authorFirmat, Cyril
dc.contributor.authorBolstad, Geir Hysing
dc.contributor.authorArmbruster, W. Scott
dc.contributor.authorHansen, Thomas Fredrik
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-19T18:11:06Z
dc.date.available2021-10-19T18:11:06Z
dc.date.created2021-09-20T09:20:11Z
dc.date.issued2021-06-17
dc.identifier.citationEvolution. 2021, 75 (9), 2217-2236.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0014-3820
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2823955
dc.description.abstractAlthough artificial-selection experiments seem well suited to testing our ability to predict evolution, the correspondence between predicted and observed responses is often ambiguous due to the lack of uncertainty estimates. We present equations for assessing prediction error in direct and indirect responses to selection that integrate uncertainty in genetic parameters used for prediction and sampling effects during selection. Using these, we analyzed a selection experiment on floral traits replicated in two taxa of the Dalechampia scandens (Euphorbiaceae) species complex for which G-matrices were obtained from a diallel breeding design. After four episodes of bidirectional selection, direct and indirect responses remained within wide prediction intervals, but appeared different from the predictions. Combined analyses with structural-equation models confirmed that responses were asymmetrical and lower than predicted in both species. We show that genetic drift is likely to be a dominant source of uncertainty in typically-dimensioned selection experiments in plants and a major obstacle to predicting short-term evolutionary trajectories.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd.en_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleQuantitative assessment of observed versus predicted responses to selectionen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2021 The Authorsen_US
dc.source.pagenumber2217-2236en_US
dc.source.volume75en_US
dc.source.journalEvolutionen_US
dc.source.issue9en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/evo.14284
dc.identifier.cristin1935764
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 223257en_US
dc.relation.projectNational Science Foundation: DEB- 0444157en_US
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 287214en_US
dc.relation.projectNational Science Foundation: DEB-0444745en_US
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 275862en_US
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 244139en_US
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 196494en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse-Ikkekommersiell 4.0 Internasjonal