| Title |
Diploid versus haploid models of neutral speciation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Biological Physics, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10867-015-9404-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David M. Schneider, Elizabeth M. Baptestini, Marcus A. M. de Aguiar |
| Abstract |
Neutral models of speciation based on isolation by distance and assortative mating, termed topopatric, have shown to be successful in describing abundance distributions and species-area relationships. Previous works have considered this type of process in the context of haploid genomes. Here we discuss the implementation of two schemes of dominance to analyze the effects of diploidy: a complete dominance model in which one allele dominates over the other and a perfect codominant model in which heterozygous genotypes give rise to a third phenotype. In the case of complete dominance, we observe that speciation requires stronger spatial inbreeding in comparison to the haploid model. For perfect codominance, instead, speciation demands stronger genetic assortativeness. Nevertheless, once speciation is established, the three models predict the same abundance distributions even at the quantitative level, revealing the robustness of the original mechanism to describe biodiversity features. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 2 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 17% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2017.
All research outputs
#17,881,664
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biological Physics
#179
of 298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,512
of 395,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biological Physics
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 298 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.