Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Disruptive selection

Disruptive selection is a mode of natural selection in evolutionary biology where individuals exhibiting extreme phenotypic traits at both ends of a distribution have higher fitness than those with intermediate traits, often resulting in increased genetic variance and a bimodal population distribution.^[1] This form of selection contrasts with directional selection, which favors one extreme and shifts the population mean toward that trait, and stabilizing selection, which favors intermediates and reduces variation around the mean.^[2] Disruptive selection typically arises in heterogeneous environments where different extremes confer advantages in distinct niches, such as resource availability or predation pressures, thereby promoting phenotypic divergence within a population.^[3] Notable examples include beak size variation in Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands, where medium-sized beaks face reduced survival during periods of seed scarcity, favoring either small beaks for fine seeds or large beaks for hard seeds.^[4] Another case is observed in male lazuli buntings, where brightly colored blue or dull brown plumage provides mating advantages over intermediate shades, driven by female preferences.^[3] In simulated ecological scenarios, such as rabbit populations in rocky habitats, extreme gray or white fur colors enhance camouflage against predators more effectively than intermediate tones.^[2] Disruptive selection plays a significant role in maintaining polymorphism and facilitating evolutionary divergence, potentially leading to sympatric speciation by splitting populations into discrete morphs without geographic isolation.^[5] Empirical studies in wild populations indicate its prevalence in promoting adaptive radiation and biodiversity, though its long-term outcomes depend on factors like gene flow and assortative mating.^[1]

Definition and Mechanisms

Definition

Disruptive selection is a mode of natural selection in which individuals possessing phenotypic traits at the extremes of a distribution experience higher relative fitness compared to those with intermediate values, thereby increasing the variance in the trait across generations.^[6] This process operates within the broader framework of natural selection, defined as the differential survival and reproductive success of individuals due to heritable differences in their traits, as originally conceptualized by Charles Darwin. A key feature of disruptive selection is its tendency to produce bimodal or multimodal distributions in the population's trait variation, as fitness peaks at both ends of the spectrum while intermediates are disfavored.^[7] In contrast to stabilizing selection, which narrows trait variance by selecting against extremes to preserve an optimal intermediate, disruptive selection actively promotes divergence and polymorphism at the population's phenotypic boundaries. The foundational ideas underlying disruptive selection trace back to early studies on genetic polymorphism in the 1940s, particularly those conducted by E. B. Ford, who extended Darwin's principles of natural selection to account for the persistence of multiple forms within populations. These investigations highlighted how selection pressures could maintain diversity rather than homogenize traits, setting the stage for later formalizations of the concept.^[8]

Comparison with Other Forms of Selection

Disruptive selection differs from other modes of natural selection by favoring phenotypes at both extremes of a trait distribution, thereby increasing phenotypic variance within the population.^[9] In contrast, directional selection acts against one extreme, preferentially favoring individuals with traits shifted toward the other end of the spectrum, which results in a gradual change in the population's mean trait value over generations.^[10] For example, directional selection might promote larger body size in a population facing predation pressure, as larger individuals gain a survival advantage.^[9] Stabilizing selection, on the other hand, operates by selecting against both extremes and favoring intermediate phenotypes, which reduces overall trait variance and reinforces the existing mean.^[10] A classic illustration is the selection for average human birth weight, where deviations in either direction increase mortality risk for infants and mothers.^[9] The unique impact of disruptive selection lies in its potential to split the population into distinct phenotypic clusters by disadvantaging intermediate forms, often leading to greater diversity and the possibility of subpopulation divergence.^[10] This contrasts sharply with directional selection, which typically homogenizes the population toward a single optimum, and stabilizing selection, which maintains uniformity around the mean.^[9] To illustrate these differences, the following table summarizes the primary effects on key population parameters:

Selection Type	Effect on Mean Trait Value	Effect on Variance	Resulting Distribution Shape
Directional	Shifts toward favored extreme	Often decreases overall	Single peak, skewed or shifted from original Gaussian
Stabilizing	Remains unchanged	Decreases	Narrower, single-peaked Gaussian curve
Disruptive	Remains unchanged or effectively splits	Increases	Bimodal, with peaks at extremes and trough in middle

These effects are derived from standard models of phenotypic selection in evolutionary biology.^[10]^[9] Visually, the progression of trait distributions under each mode can be represented through changes in a bell-shaped curve. Under stabilizing selection, an initial Gaussian distribution narrows symmetrically around the mean, eliminating tails and reducing spread.^[9] Directional selection shifts the entire curve asymmetrically toward one extreme, maintaining a single peak but relocating it along the trait axis.^[10] Disruptive selection, uniquely, transforms the unimodal curve into a bimodal one, with two pronounced peaks at the extremes and a depressed central region, highlighting the divergence in trait values.^[9]

Genetic and Ecological Mechanisms

Disruptive selection operates through genetic mechanisms that favor extreme genotypes over intermediates, often manifesting as heterozygote disadvantage or underdominance, where heterozygous individuals exhibit lower fitness compared to either homozygote at a locus.^[11] This underdominance creates a selective valley in the fitness landscape, promoting the fixation of alternative alleles and the maintenance of polymorphism when migration or gene flow introduces heterozygotes. In polygenic traits influenced by multiple loci, interactions among genes can further accentuate the fitness of extreme phenotypes, thereby facilitating the evolution of discrete morphs without necessitating novel mutations.^[11] Such interactions contribute to the buildup of linkage disequilibrium across loci, as selection aligns favorable allelic combinations in the extremes.^[12] Ecologically, disruptive selection arises from niche partitioning in heterogeneous environments, where extreme phenotypes are better adapted to distinct resources or conditions, such as spatial variation in habitat quality or temporal shifts in resource availability. This partitioning reduces competition for intermediates by allowing extremes to exploit underutilized niches, thereby increasing their relative fitness.^[13] Frequency-dependent selection amplifies this process, as rarer extreme phenotypes experience reduced intraspecific competition and higher survival or reproductive success, further favoring divergence from the population mean.^[14] Assortative mating reinforces these genetic and ecological drivers by increasing the likelihood of matings between similar extreme phenotypes, thereby reducing the production of less-fit intermediates and accelerating divergence.^[11] Overall, disruptive selection leverages existing standing genetic variation in quantitative traits to drive these outcomes, often without reliance on de novo mutations, as recombination and segregation from polygenic architectures provide the necessary phenotypic extremes.^[12] These mechanisms can be formally quantified through fitness functions that peak at phenotypic extremes relative to intermediates.^[11]

Mathematical Modeling

Fitness Functions

In disruptive selection, the fitness function w(z) for a quantitative trait z is characterized by higher values at phenotypic extremes and lower values at intermediate points, creating a U-shaped curve that promotes increased population variance.^[15] This contrasts with stabilizing selection, where fitness peaks at an intermediate optimum and declines quadratically toward extremes. A common mathematical representation uses a quadratic approximation derived from regression of relative fitness on standardized trait values: w(z) = \alpha + \beta z + \frac{\gamma}{2} z^2, where \alpha is the intercept (often normalized to 1 for relative fitness), \beta is the directional selection gradient (typically near zero in pure disruptive selection), and \gamma > 0 quantifies the positive curvature indicating disruptive selection.^[16] The parameter \gamma reflects the intensity of disruptive selection, with larger positive values corresponding to stronger disadvantages for intermediates.^[16] These quadratic forms arise from viability selection models, where w(z) represents relative survival probability before reproduction, assuming heritable variation in z provides the basis for evolutionary response.^[16] To derive the gradients, relative fitness is regressed on powers of the (centered and standardized) trait: the linear coefficient \beta = \frac{\mathrm{Cov}(w, z)}{\mathrm{Var}(z)} captures directional components, while the quadratic gradient \gamma = 2 \times (regression coefficient of relative fitness on z^2) quantifies curvature, with the model using \gamma/2 as the coefficient for z^2. For centered data (\bar{z} = 0) and standardized variance (\mathrm{Var}(z) = 1), under normality assumptions, this approximates \gamma \approx \frac{\mathrm{Cov}(w, z^2)}{\mathrm{Var}(z)^2}. Positive \gamma effectively inverts the stabilizing selection form (where \gamma < 0), leading to negative stabilizing selection that forms a fitness valley at intermediates; the selection intensity s can be parameterized as s = -\gamma / 2 in inverted Gaussian models, where higher s deepens the valley.^[17] For scenarios with multiple phenotypic optima, such as ecological niches favoring distinct extremes, fitness functions adopt multimodal forms like w(z) \propto \exp\left(-\frac{(z - \mu_1)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right) + \exp\left(-\frac{(z - \mu_2)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right), where \mu_1 and \mu_2 are the optima (e.g., symmetric at \pm a) and \sigma controls peak width, producing bimodal peaks separated by a valley when a / \sigma > 1.^[18] Gaussian approximations of these landscapes further illustrate the valley at intermediates by expanding around the population mean, yielding quadratic terms that approximate the local curvature and reveal disruptive effects even in complex terrains.^[16] Alternative linear combinations, such as w(z) = a |z - \mu_1| + b |z - \mu_2| with positive a, b, can model piecewise increasing fitness toward dual optima, though quadratic or Gaussian forms are more prevalent for smooth approximations.^[17]

Population Dynamics

Disruptive selection influences population dynamics by favoring extreme phenotypes, which typically results in no net shift in the population mean trait value but a marked increase in trait variance over generations. In the framework of quantitative genetics developed by Lande, the change in the mean trait value per generation is given by \Delta \bar{z} = \frac{\mathrm{Cov}(w, z)}{\bar{w}}, where w is relative fitness, z is the trait value, \mathrm{Cov}(w, z) is the covariance between fitness and the trait, and \bar{w} is the mean fitness; under symmetric disruptive selection with no directional component, \mathrm{Cov}(w, z) = 0, so \Delta \bar{z} = 0.^[19] This stability in the mean contrasts with the expansion of variance, driven by negative quadratic selection gradients that disproportionately reduce the fitness of intermediate phenotypes, altering the shape of the trait distribution from an initial Gaussian toward bimodality.^[20] Lande's multivariate extension incorporates the additive genetic covariance matrix G to model how correlated traits evolve jointly under selection, predicting that disruptive pressures on one trait can propagate to others, potentially accelerating divergence in genetic structure.^[21] Simulations within this framework demonstrate that starting from a unimodal Gaussian distribution, strong disruptive selection can generate bimodal trait distributions within a few generations, as extreme alleles increase in frequency and intermediate genotypes are winnowed out. Over longer timescales, these dynamics may lead to fixation of extreme alleles at loci under selection, particularly in the absence of recombination constraints, or to balanced polymorphisms if negative frequency-dependent effects stabilize intermediate frequencies.^[22] In finite populations, genetic drift interacts with disruptive selection to modulate outcomes, often accelerating the fixation of extreme variants and promoting rapid population divergence; empirical studies show significant trait divergence emerging within 10-20 generations under strong selection intensities.^[23]^[24] Migration further influences these trajectories by introducing gene flow that can counteract divergence, maintaining polymorphism in metapopulations but potentially stabilizing intermediate phenotypes if rates are high enough to homogenize subpopulations.^[25] Overall, these processes highlight disruptive selection's role in reshaping genetic variance and trait structure, with drift and migration determining whether outcomes manifest as polymorphism or speciation-like splits.^[26]

Examples

Classic Examples

A prominent natural example of disruptive selection involves beak size variation among Darwin's finches, particularly in the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis) on Daphne Major in the Galápagos Islands. Research by Peter and Rosemary Grant during the 1970s and 1980s showed that extreme beak sizes—small for cracking tiny seeds and large for handling tough, larger seeds—confer higher fitness in environments with bimodal seed distributions, while intermediate beaks are less efficient and face reduced survival. This process generates and maintains a bimodal distribution of beak morphology within populations.^[4] Cycles of wet and dry years impose fluctuating selection pressures on these traits, reinforcing the bimodality by alternately favoring different extremes based on available resources. Another well-documented case occurs in the shell coloration of the grove snail (Cepaea nemoralis) across varied British habitats. In the 1940s, E.B. Ford's studies revealed that disruptive selection favors extreme morphs—dark shells for crypsis in shaded, vegetated areas and pale shells in open, sunny exposures—over intermediate tones, which are more visible to bird predators like thrushes. This selection maintains high levels of polymorphism, as no single morph dominates in the patchy environments where the species thrives.^[27] Laboratory experiments provide direct evidence of disruptive selection's effects, as demonstrated in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) during the 1950s. J.M. Thoday's selection regimes against intermediate values for quantitative traits, such as sternopleural bristle number, rapidly increased genetic and phenotypic variance, resulting in divergent subpopulations and a polymorphic distribution after just a few generations.^[28] Comparable outcomes were achieved in contemporaneous and subsequent studies targeting wing length, where favoring short and long wings over averages led to heightened variation and bimodal trait profiles, underscoring disruptive selection's capacity to amplify extremes.

Recent Empirical Evidence

Recent studies on African cichlids in Lake Victoria have provided empirical evidence for disruptive selection driving polymorphism in male nuptial coloration. In a 2018 field study across multiple species pairs, researchers measured selection gradients and found that disruptive ecological and sexual selection on traits including coloration strongly predicts the degree of species differentiation, with intermediate color morphs experiencing reduced fitness due to mismatched mating preferences and resource use.^[29] This work builds on genomic analyses from the 2010s, where genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified multiple loci underlying color divergence in sympatric sibling species, supporting a polygenic basis for the polymorphisms maintained by such selection. ^[30] In plants, field experiments in the 2020s have demonstrated disruptive selection on flower morphology related to pollinator niches. For instance, a 2022 study on Primula alpina revealed that pollinators and seed predators impose disruptive selection on floral stalk height, favoring short stalks in shaded understory niches for bumblebee pollination and tall stalks in open areas for moth visitation, thereby maintaining morphological variation. ^[31] Similar patterns in distylous species like Primula vulgaris, where long- and short-styled morphs are adapted to different pollinator behaviors, have been corroborated by recent genomic studies showing S-locus evolution under selection pressures that favor morph-specific fitness in heterogeneous habitats. ^[32] Genomic evidence from threespine stickleback fish highlights the polygenic architecture underlying disruptive selection on armor plate number. QTL mapping in crosses from 2015 to 2023 has identified numerous loci contributing to variation in plate number, with extremes (low in freshwater, high in marine environments) showing higher fitness due to predation and osmotic pressures. A 2014 empirical study in a wild population confirmed disruptive natural selection maintaining a polymorphism at the major EDA locus, where intermediate plate numbers suffered higher predation mortality, leading to reduced heterozygote frequencies. ^[33] Climate change-induced habitat fragmentation has been shown to enhance disruptive selection on butterfly wing patterns, as discussed in a 2022 review of phenotypic responses in fragmented landscapes. The review synthesizes data from multiple Lepidoptera species, revealing that extreme wing pattern variants—such as darker melanistic forms for thermal regulation or bolder aposematic patterns for predator avoidance—may be increasingly favored in isolated patches, amplifying divergence from intermediate camouflage types under altered microclimates and dispersal barriers. ^[34]

Evolutionary Consequences

Sympatric Speciation

Disruptive selection promotes sympatric speciation by driving ecological divergence within a single population, where extreme phenotypes adapt to distinct niches, leading to assortative mating that reduces gene flow between diverging groups.^[35] This process begins with disruptive selection favoring phenotypes at the trait extremes, such as resource specialists, which increases competition and frequency-dependent fitness advantages for divergent forms. As ecological separation strengthens, individuals preferentially mate with similar phenotypes, enhancing reproductive isolation without geographic barriers.^[36] A key facilitator is the "magic trait" model, where a single trait under disruptive selection pleiotropically influences both ecological adaptation and mating preferences, such as a coloration cue that affects predator avoidance and mate recognition.^[37] In this scenario, divergent selection on the magic trait automatically generates non-random mating, accelerating the buildup of linkage disequilibrium between adaptive and mating loci. Reinforcement through mate choice further solidifies isolation, as selection favors preferences that avoid low-fitness hybrids, promoting the evolution of stronger assortative mating.^[38] Sympatric speciation via disruptive selection requires strong disruptive selection, low gene flow maintained by assortative mating, and high population density to intensify intraspecific competition and niche differentiation.^[39] Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities emerge as divergent alleles fixed under selection in each emerging lineage interact negatively in hybrids, causing postzygotic isolation through epistatic effects. Theoretical models from the 2000s indicate that sufficiently strong disruptive selection is necessary for stable divergence and speciation under disruptive selection in sympatric settings, as weaker selection fails to overcome recombination and maintain bimodal trait distributions. Population dynamics simulations confirm that such conditions allow trajectories toward complete lineage splitting when combined with sufficient assortative mating.^[35]

Polymorphism Maintenance

Disruptive selection maintains polymorphism by favoring extreme phenotypes over intermediates, thereby preventing the fixation of a single variant and preserving genetic diversity within a population. One key mechanism involves negative frequency-dependent selection (NFDS), where the fitness of a phenotype increases as its frequency decreases, balancing the advantages of extreme forms and stabilizing their coexistence.^[40] This process counters the erosion of variation by genetic drift or directional pressures, ensuring that rare morphs gain a selective edge, such as through reduced competition or predation.^[14] Another mechanism is spatial heterogeneity, where varying environmental conditions across a habitat create distinct selective regimes that support different phenotypes in localized patches, inhibiting overall fixation.^[41] These mechanisms lead to protected polymorphisms. In such cases, transient bimodality in phenotypic distributions may emerge initially, reflecting the divergence toward adaptive peaks, before resolving into stable, coexisting variants that enhance population resilience.^[42] A classic illustration is the bill size polymorphism in the African finch Pyrenestes ostrinus, where large-billed individuals efficiently crack hard seeds and small-billed ones handle soft seeds, with disruptive selection on feeding performance sustaining both morphs without reproductive isolation.^[42] Overall, disruptive selection fosters intraspecific diversity by countering homogenization from uniform selective forces, promoting adaptive flexibility in heterogeneous or fluctuating environments.^[43]

Significance and Applications

Role in Adaptive Evolution

Disruptive selection plays a pivotal role in adaptive radiation by favoring extreme phenotypes in novel environments, thereby facilitating rapid diversification of lineages into multiple ecological niches. In scenarios such as island colonizations, where resources are heterogeneous and competition is low, this form of selection promotes the splitting of ancestral populations into specialized forms adapted to distinct conditions, accelerating the evolution of new species.^[44] A core mechanism through which disruptive selection enhances evolvability is by increasing genetic variance within populations, thereby providing a broader substrate for future adaptations to fluctuating or novel conditions. This elevation in variance allows populations to respond more rapidly to environmental changes, as extreme alleles are preserved and amplified rather than intermediate ones being stabilized.^[45] Experimental studies demonstrate that such selection can dramatically boost phenotypic and genetic variation, counteracting potential reductions from other forces and promoting long-term evolutionary potential.^[46] In microbial evolution, disruptive selection has been shown to drive the maintenance of polymorphisms associated with antibiotic resistance, as observed in laboratory evolution experiments from the 2010s. These studies reveal how varying selective pressures on resistance traits can sustain diverse genotypic strategies within bacterial populations, enhancing overall adaptability to antimicrobial challenges.^[47] As one outcome, this process can contribute to sympatric speciation by reinforcing reproductive isolation among diverging forms under shared habitats.^[48]

Implications for Conservation and Genetics

In conservation biology, disruptive selection contributes to maintaining biodiversity in fragmented habitats by favoring extreme phenotypes adapted to varying patch conditions, thereby preserving genetic variation essential for long-term population resilience. Anthropogenic habitat fragmentation can impose disruptive selection on traits at both local patch and broader landscape scales, enhancing adaptive potential in isolated subpopulations while countering the homogenizing effects of reduced gene flow. For instance, extreme phenotypes in endangered cichlid species like Alcolapia in East African lakes face threats from habitat alteration, highlighting the need to conserve polymorphic traits.^[49]^[50] Applications of disruptive selection extend to breeding programs designed for crop resilience, where evolutionary plant breeding maintains diverse populations exposed to heterogeneous stresses, allowing natural disruptive forces to favor extreme genotypes tolerant of drought or temperature shifts. In climate-vulnerable species, models incorporating disruptive selection predict accelerated evolution of adaptive polymorphisms, aiding forecasts of population persistence under global warming scenarios by simulating trait divergence in fragmented or variable environments. A notable example in fisheries management involves size-selective harvesting, which mimics disruptive selection by targeting intermediate sizes and eroding fitness variance, as shown in post-2015 theoretical models that link such practices to diminished population viability and recovery potential.^[51]^[52]^[53]

References

[1]
Widespread disruptive selection in the wild is associated with ...
Aug 2, 2012 · Disruptive selection occurs in a population when two or more modal phenotypes have higher fitness than the intermediate phenotypes between them ...
[2]
Mechanisms of Natural Selection – BSC109 – Biology I
An example of disruptive selection is a population of rabbits living in a rocky environment. Gray and Himalayan rabbit types would be able to blend into the ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[3]
Migration: 3.3 Disruptive selection | OpenLearn - The Open University
Disruptive selection in which selection favours individuals with the smallest and largest values of the trait. These individuals have the highest fitness.
[4]
Disruptive selection in a bimodal population of Darwin's finches - PMC
Fourth, disruptive selection may occur in randomly mating bimodal populations, such as African Pyrenestes finches (Smith 1993). These studies show that ...
[5]
[PDF] Disruptive selection and then what? - University of Toronto
Mar 24, 2006 · Disruptive selection occurs when extreme phenotypes have a fitness advantage over more intermediate phenotypes.<|control11|><|separator|>
[6]
Disruptive Selection
### Summary of Disruptive Selection Definition and Historical Context
[7]
https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/General_Biology_(Boundless)/19%3A_The_Evolution_of_Populations/19.03%3A_Adaptive_Evolution/19.3B%3A_Stabilizing_Directional_and_Diversifying_Selection
[8]
CHAPTER 7 Natural selection in open populations - Oxford Academic
This leads to the surprising conclusion that disruptive selection is just as common as stabilizing selection—that is, in about half of all cases nearly average ...
[9]
19.3B: Stabilizing, Directional, and Diversifying Selection
Nov 23, 2024 · disruptive selection: (or diversifying selection) a mode of natural selection in which extreme values for a trait are favored over ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
[10]
Natural selection in populations (article) | Khan Academy
Stabilizing selection. In stabilizing selection, intermediate phenotypes are more fit than extreme ones. · Directional selection. One extreme phenotype is more ...
[11]
Three problems in the genetics of speciation by selection - PNAS
Jul 18, 2022 · Such disruptive selection should cause fitness underdominance at causal loci and negative epistasis for fitness between them, although these ...
[12]
Gene flow, adaptive population divergence and comparative ...
Dec 18, 2003 · Recent quantitative genetic theory shows that, under diversifying selection on quantitative traits, covariances (linkage disequilibrium) among ...
[13]
reconciling kin selection, niche partitioning and competitive ability
Nov 9, 2011 · When the models are applied to one species, the most common result is frequency-dependent, disruptive selection [87] on the phenotype related to ...
[14]
Negative Frequency-Dependent Selection Is Frequently Confounding
Stabilizing mechanisms promote species coexistence and include mechanisms such as resource partitioning and frequency-dependent predation, as well as ...
[15]
[PDF] Patterns and Power of Phenotypic Selection in Nature
Disruptive selection may even promote the formation of new species if the two phenotypic extremes become reproductively isolated from one another.
[16]
[PDF] The Measurement of Selection on Correlated Characters - Gwern
Natural selection acts on phenotypes, regardless of their genetic basis, and pro- duces immediate phenotypic effects within.
[17]
[PDF] Directional, stabilizing and disruptive selection
Section 3 uses the framework for the definition and analysis of directional, stabilizing and disruptive selection. Section 4 presents fitness functions that can ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[18]
None
Summary of each segment:
[19]
Selection and the direction of phenotypic evolution - eLife
Aug 31, 2023 · In Lande's equation, the trait change over one generation equals the ancestral G -matrix times the directional phenotypic selection gradients, ...
[20]
A unified measure of linear and nonlinear selection on quantitative ...
Oct 19, 2016 · Directional, stabilizing and disruptive selection. We now formally consider how the DSD behaves under three important types of selection: ...
[21]
The contribution of gene flow, selection, and genetic drift to ... - PNAS
We show how the genome-wide variance in allele frequency change between two time points can be decomposed into the contributions of gene flow, genetic drift, ...Missing: disruptive | Show results with:disruptive<|control11|><|separator|>
[22]
The genomics of discrete polymorphisms maintained by disruptive ...
Jul 21, 2025 · We show that particular genetic architectures, in terms of dominance, epistasis, and linkage, are likely to evolve to produce discrete morphs ...Missing: underdominance seminal
[23]
Disruptive Selection for Sternopleural Chaeta Number in Various ...
Disruptive selection for ... One strain (South Africa) showed significant divergence between high and low chaeta numbers only after 10 generations.
[24]
Evolution of variation and variability under fluctuating, stabilizing ...
Aug 7, 2025 · ... 20 generations. Patterns of variation in wing size, which was not a direct target of selection, were also analyzed. Disruptive selection ...
[25]
EFFECTS OF DISRUPTIVE SELECTION - Nature
a divergence of 3 bristles per fly for five generations of selection. The ... Thus disruptive selection with 25 per cent. gene flow and negatively ...
[26]
Drift, selection, or migration? Processes affecting genetic ...
Aug 14, 2017 · We disentangle how drift, selection and migration shape neutral and adaptive genetic variation in 12 moor frog populations along a 1700 km latitudinal gradient.
[27]
Recurrent patterns of natural selection in a population of Darwin's ...
Jun 28, 1984 · Boag and Grant1 documented directional selection in a small population of Darwin's medium ground finches, Geospiza fortis, on I. Daphne ...Missing: disruptive | Show results with:disruptive
[28]
Selection and disequilibrium in Cepaea nemoralis - Oxford Academic
Alternatively, or in addition, selection may be primarily directional and diversifying. That would in principle lead to homozygosity for different allele ...
[29]
Genetics of male nuptial colour divergence between sympatric sister ...
Apr 19, 2010 · We investigated the genetic architecture controlling male nuptial colouration in a sympatric sibling species pair of cichlid fish from Lake ...Missing: GWAS | Show results with:GWAS
[30]
Disruptive selection via pollinators and seed predators on the height ...
Oct 4, 2022 · Our study provides evidence for unusual disruptive selection on floral stalk height in P. alpina in terms of three components of reproductive ...
[31]
Genomic analyses elucidate S‐locus evolution in response to intra ...
Mar 21, 2024 · Genomic analyses elucidate S-locus evolution in response to intra-specific losses of distyly in Primula vulgaris.
[32]
Animal Coloration in the Anthropocene - Frontiers
Apr 21, 2022 · While climate change may cause directional selection for traits that ameliorate thermal and drought related stresses, landscape change ...
[33]
Evolutionary Branching and Sympatric Speciation Caused by ...
We show that evolution under branching conditions selects for assortativeness and thus allows sexual populations to escape from fitness minima. We conclude that ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[34]
Sympatric speciation in structureless environments
Feb 29, 2016 · The current prevalent view of sympatric speciation is that it is driven by disruptive selection through ecological competition on traits linked ...
[35]
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/303417
[36]
Refining the conditions for sympatric ecological speciation - 2012
Oct 1, 2012 · We see that sympatric ecological speciation is favoured when mating is more assortative (higher Z), and selection more locally disruptive and ...Results · Conditions For Disruptive... · Equilibrium Distribution Of...
[37]
A Theoretical Primer on How Small and Large Populations Diverge
Oct 9, 2025 · Large populations generally evolve more rapidly in response to persistent directional selection, thanks to abundant standing genetic variation.
[38]
Frequency-Dependent Selection and the Maintenance of Genetic ...
We find that FDS maintains full polymorphism more often than classic constant-selection models and produces more skewed equilibrium allele frequencies.
[39]
Spatial heterogeneity, predator cognition, and the evolution of color ...
The results also support the common assessment that color polymorphism in cryptic prey species is, at least in part, a consequence of disruptive selection. The ...
[40]
supergenes and the curious case of balanced lethals - Journals
Jun 13, 2022 · Mutation accumulation opposes polymorphism: supergenes and the curious case of balanced lethals ... disruptive selection, Trends in Ecology & ...
[41]
Disruptive selection and the genetic basis of bill size polymorphism ...
Jun 17, 1993 · MECHANISMS producing and maintaining ... Disruptive selection and the genetic basis of bill size polymorphism in the African finch Pyrenestes.
[42]
Modern Theories of Evolution: Natural Selection
NOTE: Sickle-cell trait is often referred to simply as sickle-cell anemia. ... This has been referred to as disruptive selection because both extremes are favored ...Missing: maintenance | Show results with:maintenance
[43]
7 Evolution and Natural Selection - Utexas
" Disruptive selection is one mechanism that produces and maintains polymorphisms, such as the green-brown color polymorphisms of many insects. For instance ...
[44]
Temporally varying disruptive selection in the medium ground finch ...
Dec 4, 2019 · However, the previous work focused on directional selection in a unimodal population, whereas we focused on disruptive selection in a bimodal ...
[45]
Disruptive selection and the evolution of discrete color morphs in ...
Mar 31, 2023 · In theory, ecological discontinuities can impose strong disruptive selection that promotes the evolution of discrete forms, but direct tests of ...Introduction · Results · Materials And Methods
[46]
Effects of disruptive selection on genetic variance
With small numbers of loci, the disequilibrium is shown still to comprise the major part of the changes in variance. In a replicated experiment with Drosophila ...
[47]
EVOLUTION OF VARIATION AND VARIABILITY UNDER ... - Wiley
Jul 6, 2010 · Disruptive selection dramatically increased phenotypic variation in the two shape characters, but left phenotypic variation in wing size ...
[48]
Adaptive evolution of hybrid bacteria by horizontal gene transfer
Mar 1, 2021 · (D and E) Positive directional selection (leu, eps). (F and G) Disruptive epistasis, hybrid incompatibilities (rps, ylo). See also Dataset S5.
[49]
Sympatric speciation under incompatibility selection - PNAS
Aug 1, 2006 · Analogously, incompatibility fitness function winc(x, y) is: For disruptive selection we assume the consumption functions to be cI(x) = exp ...
[50]
Adaptation to fragmentation: evolutionary dynamics driven by ...
Jan 19, 2017 · We show that anthropogenic fragmentation can generate selection on traits at both the patch and landscape scale, and affect the adaptive potential of ...(b) Demographic And... · (i) Adaptation At The Local... · (ii) Adaptation At The...
[51]
High levels of interspecific gene flow in an endemic cichlid fish ...
All Alcolapia species are categorized as endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN ... disruptive selection associated with speciation reversal in whitefish. BMC ...
[52]
[PDF] Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems ...
Jul 12, 2024 · It provides public, private and non-governmental organisations with the knowledge and tools that enable human progress, economic development and ...Missing: cichlids | Show results with:cichlids
[53]
Widespread natural selection on metabolite levels in humans
Aug 16, 2024 · Here, we estimate the action of natural selection on genetic variants associated with metabolite levels, an important layer of molecular traits.
[54]
GWAS of random glucose in 476,326 individuals provide ... - Nature
Sep 7, 2023 · Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for glycemic traits in individuals without diabetes have identified genetic predictors of blood ...Missing: disruptive | Show results with:disruptive
[55]
Evolutionary Plant Breeding as a Response to the Complexity of ...
Dec 18, 2020 · First, it makes our crops more vulnerable because their genetic uniformity makes them unable to respond to both short- and long-term climate ...Missing: disruptive | Show results with:disruptive
[56]
Climate change is predicted to disrupt patterns of local adaptation in ...
Jul 10, 2019 · We predict that climate change will alter patterns of local adaptation and decrease migration probabilities in more than two-thirds of present-day teosinte ...
[57]
Fisheries-induced disruptive selection - ScienceDirect.com
Jan 21, 2015 · We study how the potential for disruptive selection changes with fishing policy, fishing mortality, harvest specialization, life-history tradeoffs associated ...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-