Defining Fitness in Evolutionary Models

Overview

Journal J Genet

Specialty Genetics

Date 2009 Jan 17

PMID 19147923

Citations 21

Authors

Derek A Roff

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The analysis of evolutionary models requires an appropriate definition for fitness. In this paper, I review such definitions in relation to the five major dimensions by which models may be described, namely (i) finite versus infinite (or very large) population size, (ii) type of environment (constant, fixed length, temporally stochastic, temporally predictable, spatially stochastic, spatially predictable and social environment), (iii) density-independent or density-dependent, (iv) inherent population dynamics (equilibrium, cyclical and chaotic), and (v) frequency dependent or independent. In simple models, the Malthusian parameter 'r' or the net reproductive rate R(0) may be satisfactory, but once density-dependence or complex population dynamics is introduced the invasion exponent should be used. Defining fitness in a social environment or when there is frequency-dependence requires special consideration.

Citing Articles

The far-reaching effects of genetic process in a keystone predator species, grey wolves.

Hoy S, Hedrick P, Peterson R, Vucetich L, Brzeski K, Vucetich J Sci Adv. 2023; 9(34):eadc8724.

PMID: 37611108 PMC: 10446474. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adc8724.

Different proxies, different stories? Imperfect correlations and different determinants of fitness in bighorn sheep.

Van de Walle J, Larue B, Pigeon G, Pelletier F Ecol Evol. 2022; 12(12):e9582.

PMID: 36514553 PMC: 9731912. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.9582.

The Contributions of Maternal Age Heterogeneity to Variance in Lifetime Reproductive Output.

van Daalen S, Hernandez C, Caswell H, Neubert M, Gribble K Am Nat. 2022; 199(5):603-616.

PMID: 35472026 PMC: 11416746. DOI: 10.1086/718716.

What is the best fitness measure in wild populations? A case study on the power of short-term fitness proxies to predict reproductive value.

Alif Z, Dunning J, Chik H, Burke T, Schroeder J PLoS One. 2022; 17(4):e0260905.

PMID: 35452482 PMC: 9032343. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260905.

Optimal allocation in annual plants with density-dependent fitness.

Koshkin S, Zalles Z, Tobin M, Toumbacaris N, Spiess C Theory Biosci. 2021; 140(2):177-196.

PMID: 33846896 DOI: 10.1007/s12064-021-00343-9.

References

Tuljapurkar S . An uncertain life: demography in random environments. Theor Popul Biol. 1989; 35(3):227-94. DOI: 10.1016/0040-5809(89)90001-4. View

Pepper J . Relatedness in trait group models of social evolution. J Theor Biol. 2000; 206(3):355-68. DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.2000.2132. View

Creel S . How to measure inclusive fitness. Proc Biol Sci. 1990; 241(1302):229-31. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1990.0090. View

den Boer P . Spreading of risk and stabilization of animal numbers. Acta Biotheor. 1968; 18(1):165-94. DOI: 10.1007/BF01556726. View

Charlesworth B . Selection in populations with overlapping generations. 3. Conditions for genetic equilibrium. Theor Popul Biol. 1972; 3(4):377-95. DOI: 10.1016/0040-5809(72)90011-1. View

Gross M, Charnov E . Alternative male life histories in bluegill sunfish. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980; 77(11):6937-40. PMC: 350407. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.77.11.6937. View

Grafen A . How not to measure inclusive fitness. Nature. 1982; 298(5873):425-6. DOI: 10.1038/298425a0. View

Rand D, Wilson H, McGlade J . Dynamics and evolution: evolutionarily stable attractors, invasion exponents and phenotype dynamics. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1994; 343(1035):261-83. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.1994.0025. View

Bshary R, Bergmuller R . Distinguishing four fundamental approaches to the evolution of helping. J Evol Biol. 2008; 21(2):405-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01482.x. View

10.

Waxman D, Gavrilets S . 20 questions on adaptive dynamics. J Evol Biol. 2005; 18(5):1139-54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00948.x. View

11.

Greenman J, Benton T, Boots M, White A . The evolution of oscillatory behavior in age-structured species. Am Nat. 2005; 166(1):68-78. DOI: 10.1086/430640. View

12.

Ratnieks F, Wenseleers T . Altruism in insect societies and beyond: voluntary or enforced?. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007; 23(1):45-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.09.013. View

13.

Wright S . Evolution in Mendelian Populations. Genetics. 1931; 16(2):97-159. PMC: 1201091. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/16.2.97. View

14.

Taylor P, Wild G, Gardner A . Direct fitness or inclusive fitness: how shall we model kin selection?. J Evol Biol. 2007; 20(1):301-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01196.x. View

15.

Dieckmann U, Doebeli M . Pluralism in evolutionary theory. J Evol Biol. 2005; 18(5):1209-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00960.x. View

16.

Tuljapurkar S, Horvitz C, Pascarella J . The many growth rates and elasticities of populations in random environments. Am Nat. 2003; 162(4):489-502. DOI: 10.1086/378648. View

17.

Cohen D . Optimizing reproduction in a randomly varying environment. J Theor Biol. 1966; 12(1):119-29. DOI: 10.1016/0022-5193(66)90188-3. View

18.

Charlesworth B . Natural selection on multivariate traits in age-structured populations. Proc Biol Sci. 1993; 251(1330):47-52. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1993.0007. View

19.

Dieckmann U . Can adaptive dynamics invade?. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011; 12(4):128-31. DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5347(97)01004-5. View

20.

Fletcher J, Zwick M . Unifying the theories of inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism. Am Nat. 2006; 168(2):252-62. DOI: 10.1086/506529. View