↓ Skip to main content

Frequency-Dependent Selection Predicts Patterns of Radiations and Biodiversity

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
citeulike
5 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
Frequency-Dependent Selection Predicts Patterns of Radiations and Biodiversity
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, August 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000892
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos J. Melián, David Alonso, Diego P. Vázquez, James Regetz, Stefano Allesina

Abstract

Most empirical studies support a decline in speciation rates through time, although evidence for constant speciation rates also exists. Declining rates have been explained by invoking pre-existing niches, whereas constant rates have been attributed to non-adaptive processes such as sexual selection and mutation. Trends in speciation rate and the processes underlying it remain unclear, representing a critical information gap in understanding patterns of global diversity. Here we show that the temporal trend in the speciation rate can also be explained by frequency-dependent selection. We construct a frequency-dependent and DNA sequence-based model of speciation. We compare our model to empirical diversity patterns observed for cichlid fish and Darwin's finches, two classic systems for which speciation rates and richness data exist. Negative frequency-dependent selection predicts well both the declining speciation rate found in cichlid fish and explains their species richness. For groups like the Darwin's finches, in which speciation rates are constant and diversity is lower, speciation rate is better explained by a model without frequency-dependent selection. Our analysis shows that differences in diversity may be driven by incipient species abundance with frequency-dependent selection. Our results demonstrate that genetic-distance-based speciation and frequency-dependent selection are sufficient to explain the high diversity observed in natural systems and, importantly, predict decay through time in speciation rate in the absence of pre-existing niches.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 12 9%
Switzerland 4 3%
Spain 3 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Chile 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 100 78%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 27%
Researcher 33 26%
Student > Master 16 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 6 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 89 69%
Environmental Science 20 16%
Physics and Astronomy 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 6 5%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 September 2010.
All research outputs
#17,313,103
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,488
of 8,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,454
of 103,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#45
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,976 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 103,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.