This Is AuburnAUrora

Show simple item record

Are we underestimating the genetic variances of dimorphic traits?


Metadata FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorMathew Wolak, mew0099@auburn.eduen_US
dc.creatorWolak, Mathew E.
dc.creatorRoff, Derek A.
dc.creatorFairbairn, Daphne J.
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-16T01:32:22Z
dc.date.available2022-09-16T01:32:22Z
dc.date.created2015
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1361en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.1361en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://aurora.auburn.edu/handle/11200/50334
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.35099/aurora-402
dc.description.abstractPopulations often contain discrete classes or morphs (e.g., sexual dimorphisms, wing dimorphisms, trophic dimorphisms) characterized by distinct patterns of trait expression. In quantitative genetic analyses, the different morphs can be considered as different environments within which traits are expressed. Genetic variances and covariances can then be estimated independently for each morph or in a combined analysis. In the latter case, morphs can be considered as separate environments in a bivariate analysis or entered as fixed effects in a univariate analysis. Although a common approach, we demonstrate that the latter produces downwardly biased estimates of additive genetic variance and heritability unless the quantitative genetic architecture of the traits concerned is perfectly correlated between the morphs. This result is derived for four widely used quantitative genetic variance partitioning methods. Given that theory predicts the evolution of genotype-by-environment (morph) interactions as a consequence of selection favoring different trait combinations in each morph, we argue that perfect correlations between the genetic architectures of the different morphs are unlikely. A sampling of the recent literature indicates that the majority of researchers studying traits expressed in different morphs recognize this and do estimate morph-specific quantitative genetic architecture. However, ca. 16% of the studies in our sample utilized only univariate, fixed-effects models. We caution against this approach and recommend that it be used only if supported by evidence that the genetic architectures of the different morphs do not differ.en_US
dc.formatPDFen_US
dc.publisherWILEY-BLACKWELLen_US
dc.relation.ispartofEcology and Evolutionen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries2045-7758en_US
dc.rights© 2015. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Item should be cited as: Wolak, M. E., Roff, D. A., & Fairbairn, D. J. (2015). Are we underestimating the genetic variances of dimorphic traits?. Ecology and Evolution, 5(3), 590-597.en_US
dc.subjectAnimal modelen_US
dc.subjectbetween-sex genetic correlationen_US
dc.subjectoffspring-parent covarianceen_US
dc.subjectsexual dimorphismen_US
dc.subjectsire and dam variancesen_US
dc.subjectQUANTITATIVE GENETICSen_US
dc.subjectHERITABILITen_US
dc.subjectEVOLUTIONen_US
dc.subjectWeighten_US
dc.titleAre we underestimating the genetic variances of dimorphic traits?en_US
dc.typeTexten_US
dc.type.genreJournal Article, Academic Journalen_US
dc.citation.volume5en_US
dc.citation.issue3en_US
dc.citation.spage590en_US
dc.citation.epage597en_US
dc.description.statusPublisheden_US
dc.description.peerreviewYesen_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record