Journal•ISSN: 1010-061X
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Wiley-Blackwell
About: Journal of Evolutionary Biology is an academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Population & Sexual selection. It has an ISSN identifier of 1010-061X. Over the lifetime, 5064 publications have been published receiving 233227 citations. The journal is also known as: JEB.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: A number of practical obstacles to model averaging complex models are highlighted and it is hoped that this approach will become more accessible to those investigating any process where multiple variables impact an evolutionary or ecological response.
Abstract: Information theoretic approaches and model averaging are increasing in popularity, but this approach can be difficult to apply to the realistic, complex models that typify many ecological and evolutionary analyses. This is especially true for those researchers without a formal background in information theory. Here, we highlight a number of practical obstacles to model averaging complex models. Although not meant to be an exhaustive review, we identify several important issues with tentative solutions where they exist (e.g. dealing with collinearity amongst predictors; how to compute model-averaged parameters) and highlight areas for future research where solutions are not clear (e.g. when to use random intercepts or slopes; which information criteria to use when random factors are involved). We also provide a worked example of a mixed model analysis of inbreeding depression in a wild population. By providing an overview of these issues, we hope that this approach will become more accessible to those investigating any process where multiple variables impact an evolutionary or ecological response.
1,906 citations
University of St Andrews1, University of Oldenburg2, Natural History Museum3, Naturalis4, Centre national de la recherche scientifique5, Michigan State University6, University of Lausanne7, University of Wyoming8, Queen Mary University of London9, University of Sheffield10, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis11, University of Oslo12, University of Vienna13, University of Vermont14, University of East Anglia15, Spanish National Research Council16, University of Cambridge17, University of Konstanz18, University of Zurich19, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh20, Harvard University21, Autonomous University of Madrid22, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology23, Boston University24, Max Planck Society25, University of Neuchâtel26, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill27, Lehigh University28, American Museum of Natural History29, University of Montpellier30, University of Liverpool31, Jagiellonian University32, Uppsala University33, German Primate Center34
TL;DR: A perspective on the context and evolutionary significance of hybridization during speciation is offered, highlighting issues of current interest and debate and suggesting that the Dobzhansky–Muller model of hybrid incompatibilities requires a broader interpretation.
Abstract: Hybridization has many and varied impacts on the process of speciation. Hybridization may slow or reverse differentiation by allowing gene flow and recombination. It may accelerate speciation via adaptive introgression or cause near-instantaneous speciation by allopolyploidization. It may have multiple effects at different stages and in different spatial contexts within a single speciation event. We offer a perspective on the context and evolutionary significance of hybridization during speciation, highlighting issues of current interest and debate. In secondary contact zones, it is uncertain if barriers to gene flow will be strengthened or broken down due to recombination and gene flow. Theory and empirical evidence suggest the latter is more likely, except within and around strongly selected genomic regions. Hybridization may contribute to speciation through the formation of new hybrid taxa, whereas introgression of a few loci may promote adaptive divergence and so facilitate speciation. Gene regulatory networks, epigenetic effects and the evolution of selfish genetic material in the genome suggest that the Dobzhansky-Muller model of hybrid incompatibilities requires a broader interpretation. Finally, although the incidence of reinforcement remains uncertain, this and other interactions in areas of sympatry may have knock-on effects on speciation both within and outside regions of hybridization.
1,715 citations
TL;DR: The aim here is to address issues of semantic confusion that have arisen with research on the problem of cooperation, and to emphasize the need to distinguish between proximate (mechanism) and ultimate (survival value) explanations of behaviours.
Abstract: From an evolutionary perspective, social behaviours are those which have fitness consequences for both the individual that performs the behaviour, and another individual. Over the last 43 years, a huge theoretical and empirical literature has developed on this topic. However, progress is often hindered by poor communication between scientists, with different people using the same term to mean different things, or different terms to mean the same thing. This can obscure what is biologically important, and what is not. The potential for such semantic confusion is greatest with interdisciplinary research. Our aim here is to address issues of semantic confusion that have arisen with research on the problem of cooperation. In particular, we: (i) discuss confusion over the terms kin selection, mutualism, mutual benefit, cooperation, altruism, reciprocal altruism, weak altruism, altruistic punishment, strong reciprocity, group selection and direct fitness; (ii) emphasize the need to distinguish between proximate (mechanism) and ultimate (survival value) explanations of behaviours. We draw examples from all areas, but especially recent work on humans and microbes.
1,258 citations
TL;DR: Significantly, the genetic architecture underlying RI, the patterns of species hybridization and the molecular signature of speciation genes all appear to support the view that RI is one of the manifestations of differential adaptation, as Darwin (1859) suggested.
Abstract: The unit of adaptation is usually thought to be a gene or set of interacting genes, rather than the whole genome, and this may be true of species differentiation. Defining species on the basis of reproductive isolation (RI), on the other hand, is a concept best applied to the entire genome. The biological species concept (BSC; Mayr, 1963) stresses the isolation aspect of speciation on the basis of two fundamental genetic assumptions ‐ the number of loci underlying species differentiation is large and the whole genome behaves as a cohesive, or coadapted genetic unit. Under these tenets, the exchange of any part of the genomes between diverging groups is thought to destroy their integrity. Hence, the maintenance of each species’ genome cohesiveness by isolating mechanisms has become the central concept of species. In contrast, the Darwinian view of speciation is about differential adaptation to different natural or sexual environments. RI is viewed as an important by product of differential adaptation and complete RI across the whole genome need not be considered as the most central criterion of speciation. The emphasis on natural and sexual selection thus makes the Darwinian view compatible with the modern genic concept of evolution. Genetic and molecular analyses of speciation in the last decade have yielded surprisingly strong support for the neo-Darwinian view of extensive genetic differentiation and epistasis during speciation. However, the extent falls short of what BSC requires in order to achieve whole-genome ‘cohesiveness’. Empirical observations suggest that the gene is the unit of species differentiation. Significantly, the genetic architecture underlying RI, the patterns of species hybridization and the molecular signature of speciation genes all appear to support the view that RI is one of the manifestations of differential adaptation, as Darwin (1859, Chap. 8) suggested. The nature of this adaptation may be as much the result of sexual selection as natural selection. In the light of studies since its early days, BSC may now need a major revision by shifting the emphasis from isolation at the level of whole genome to differential adaptation at the genic level. With this revision, BSC would in fact be close to Darwin’s original concept of speciation.
1,193 citations
1,071 citations