↓ Skip to main content

A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Evolutionary Biology, December 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
297 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
424 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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
A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology
Published in
Journal of Evolutionary Biology, December 2006
DOI 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01164.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. W. Blows

Abstract

Two symmetric matrices underlie our understanding of microevolutionary change. The first is the matrix of nonlinear selection gradients (gamma) which describes the individual fitness surface. The second is the genetic variance-covariance matrix (G) that influences the multivariate response to selection. A common approach to the empirical analysis of these matrices is the element-by-element testing of significance, and subsequent biological interpretation of pattern based on these univariate and bivariate parameters. Here, I show why this approach is likely to misrepresent the genetic basis of quantitative traits, and the selection acting on them in many cases. Diagonalization of square matrices is a fundamental aspect of many of the multivariate statistical techniques used by biologists. Applying this, and other related approaches, to the analysis of the structure of gamma and G matrices, gives greater insight into the form and strength of nonlinear selection, and the availability of genetic variance for multiple traits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 424 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 12 3%
United Kingdom 5 1%
Brazil 5 1%
Norway 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 381 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 121 29%
Researcher 113 27%
Student > Master 31 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 27 6%
Professor 24 6%
Other 74 17%
Unknown 34 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 298 70%
Environmental Science 28 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 1%
Social Sciences 4 <1%
Other 16 4%
Unknown 55 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 March 2020.
All research outputs
#15,469,356
of 24,525,936 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evolutionary Biology
#2,119
of 2,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,355
of 166,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evolutionary Biology
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,525,936 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 166,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.