Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:53:39.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection in different environments: effects on environmental sensitivity (reaction norm) and on mean performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

D. S. Falconer
D. S. Falconer
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN, Scotland
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.

To simplify the description of selection in two environments the terms ‘ antagonistic’ and ‘synergistic’ are used. Selection upwards in a bad environment or downwards in a good environment is antagonistic, the selection and the environment acting in opposite directions on the character. Synergistic selection is the reverse, upwards in a good environment or downwards in a bad, selection and environment acting in the same direction. Published experiments are reviewed to see how well they agree with two expectations. First, Jinks & Connolly (1973) showed that antagonistic selection reduces environmental sensitivity and synergistic selection increases it. The experiments reviewed showed many exceptions to this rule, but they all showed that sensitivity was less after antagonistic than after synergistic selection. This is shown to be simply the consequence of correlated responses being less than direct responses. Second, I suggested (Falconer, 1989) that antagonistic selection might be the best way to improve the mean performance in the two environments. In the experiments reviewed, antagonistic selection was significantly better than synergistic for changing the mean, but it is now shown that there is no theoretical justification for this expectation; if one type of selection is better in one direction the other ought to be better in the other direction.

Expressions are given for the changes of mean performance and of sensitivity resulting from selection in one or other environment; these changes can be predicted from the parameters of the base population. In the experiments reviewed, an increase of mean performance accounted for 49% or more of the upward response. Equations are presented which allow the variance of mean performance, the variance of sensitivity, and the covariance of mean with sensitivity to be derived from parameters estimated in an unselected population, namely the variances in the two environments and the corresponding covariance. The variance of sensitivity that might be ascribed to scale effects is deduced. Directional selection in a single macro-environment is synergistic with respect to the micro-environmental differences, and is expected to increase environmental sensitivity and consequently to increase environmental variance. Stabilizing selection is antagonistic selection in both directions at the same time, and so is expected to decrease environmental variance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , August 1990 , pp. 57 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

References

Dalton, D. C. (1967). Selection for growth in mice on two diets. Animal Production 9, 425–434.Google Scholar
Druger, M. (1962). Selection and body size in Drosophila pseudoobscura at different temperatures. Genetics 47, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Selection of mice for growth on high and low planes of nutrition. Genetical Research 1, 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1989). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 3rd edn.Longman.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. & Latyszewski, M. (1952). The environment in relation to selection for size in mice. Journal of Genetics 51, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, S. H. & Ensminger, M. E. (1960). Interactions between genotype and plane of nutrition in selection for rate of gain in swine. Journal of Animal Science 19, 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friars, G. W., Nayak, B. N., Jui, P. Y. & Raktoe, B. L. (1971). An investigation of genotype × environment interaction in relation to a selection experiment in Tribolium castaneum. Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology 13, 144–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, J. W. (1961). Selection in two environments. Heredity 16, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jinks, J. L. & Connolly, V. (1973). Selection for specific and general response to environmental differences. Heredity 30, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jinks, J. L. & Pooni, H. S. (1988). The genetic basis of environmental sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Quantitative Genetics (ed. Weir, B. S., Eisen, E. J., Goodman, M. M. & Namkoong, G.), pp. 505–522. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass. U.S.A.Google Scholar
Kaufman, P. K., Enfield, F. D. & Comstock, R. E. (1977). Stabilizing selection for pupa weight in Tribolium castaneum. Genetics 87, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korkman, N. (1961). Selection for size in mice in different nutritional environments. Hereditas 47, 342–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. & Jinks, J. L. (1982). Biometrical Genetics, 3rd edn.Chapman & Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, C. B., Sulzbach, D. S. & Connolly, M. S. (1988). Quantitative-genetic analysis of temperature regulation in Mus domesticus. IV. Pleiotropy and genotype-by-environment interaction. The American Naturalist 132, 521–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, V. H. & Andersen, S. (1987). Selection for growth on normal and reduced protein diets in mice. Genetical Research 50, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orozco, F. (1976). A dynamic study of genotype-environment interaction with egg laying of Tribolium castaneum. Heredity 37, 157–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, Y. I., Hansen, C. T., Chung, C. S. & Chapman, A. B. (1966). Influence of feeding regime on the effects of selection for postweaning gain in the rat. Genetics 54, 1315–1327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, F. W. (1960). The ecological genetics of growth in Drosophila. 2. Selection for large body size on different diets. Genetical Research 1, 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutledge, J. J., Eisen, E. J. & Legates, J. E. (1973). An experimental evaluation of genetic correlation. Genetics 75, 709–726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmonds, N. W. (1984). Decentralized selection. Sugar Cane 6, 8–10.Google Scholar
Sørensen, P. (1980). Results of selection in broilers reared on different suboptimal feeding regimes. XXII British Poultry Breeders Roundtable, 1980, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. R. & Rook, S. K. (1988). Lack of a correlated response to canalizing selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Heredity 79, 385–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Via, S. & Lande, R. (1985). Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39, 505–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamada, Y. & Bell, A. E. (1969). Selection for larval growth in Tribolium under two levels of nutrition. Genetical Research 13, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yüksel, E., Hill, W. G. & Roberts, R. C. (1981). Selection for efficiency of feed utilization in growing mice. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 59, 129–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed