↓ Skip to main content

Evolutionary constraints in high-dimensional trait sets.

Overview of attention for article published in The American Naturalist, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evolutionary constraints in high-dimensional trait sets.
Published in
The American Naturalist, May 2014
DOI 10.1086/676504
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Hine, Katrina McGuigan, Mark W Blows

Abstract

Genetic variation for individual traits is typically abundant, but for some multivariate combinations it is very low, suggesting that evolutionary limits might be generated by the geometric distribution of genetic variance. To test this prediction, we artificially selected along all eight genetic eigenvectors of a set of eight quantitative traits in Drosophila serrata. After six generations of 50% truncation selection, at least one replicate population of all treatments responded to selection, allowing us to reject a null genetic subspace as a cause of evolutionary constraint in this system. However, while all three replicate populations of the first five selection treatments displayed a significant response, the remaining three, characterized by low genetic variance in their selection indexes in the base population, displayed inconsistent responses to selection. The observation that only four of the nine replicate populations evolved in response to the direct selection applied to them in these low genetic variance treatments, led us to conclude that a nearly null subspace did limit evolution. Dimensions associated with low genetic variance are often found in multivariate analyses of standing genetic variance in morphological traits, suggesting that the nearly null genetic subspace may be a common mechanism of evolutionary constraint in nature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
France 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 84 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 29%
Researcher 22 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 9 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 68%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Unspecified 1 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 15 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 July 2014.
All research outputs
#8,262,193
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from The American Naturalist
#2,051
of 4,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,615
of 245,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Naturalist
#12
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 245,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.