Assortative mating and artificial selection :  a second appraisal

SMITH, S. P.; HAMMOND, K.

doi:10.1051/gse:19870204

Cited by 6 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The column % error shows that for random mating the Bulmer prediction (G B ) underestimated Gs x when selection was intense and overestimated Gs x when many progeny were retained for breeding. These results agree with the findings reported by Smith and Hammond (1987). Smith and Hammond (1987) For random mating the deterministic prediction at each generation underestimated the stochastic genetic gain when selection was intense (fig 2A) and overestimated the stochastic genetic gain when selection intensity was low ( fig 2E).…”

supporting

confidence: 83%

“…These results agree with the findings reported by Smith and Hammond (1987). Smith and Hammond (1987) For random mating the deterministic prediction at each generation underestimated the stochastic genetic gain when selection was intense (fig 2A) and overestimated the stochastic genetic gain when selection intensity was low ( fig 2E). When 50% of progeny were retained for breeding ( fig 2C) (Shepherd, 1991 (Shepherd and Kinghorn, 1993).…”

supporting

confidence: 83%

“…This has been demonstrated in experimental studies with Drosophila (McBride and Robertson, 1963) and Tribolium (Wilson et al, 1965), in stochastic computer simulations (De Lange, 1974) and in deterministic computer simulations (Fernando and Gianola, 1986;Smith and Hammond, 1987;Tallis and Leppard, 1987). Smith and Hammond (1987) (Fernando and Gianola, 1986;Smith and Hammond, 1987). Smith and Hammond (1987) (1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Smith and Hammond (1987) (Fernando and Gianola, 1986;Smith and Hammond, 1987). Smith and Hammond (1987) (1987). The maximum percentage error was less than 0.03%.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Smith and Hammond (1987) investigated the departure from normality following 2 generations of mass selection combined with random mating. When heritability was 0.8 they showed that the error in calculating selection response assuming normality was 0.9, 0.2 and —1.8% when 10, 40 and 90%, respectively, of progeny were retained for breeding (see their table III).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A deterministic multi-tier model of assortative mating following selection

Shepherd¹,

Kinghorn²

1994

Genet Sel Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 83%

supporting

confidence: 83%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Smith and Hammond (1987) (Fernando and Gianola, 1986;Smith and Hammond, 1987). Smith and Hammond (1987) (1987). The maximum percentage error was less than 0.03%.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A deterministic multi-tier model of assortative mating following selection

Shepherd¹,

Kinghorn²

1994

Genet Sel Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A deterministic multi-tier model of assortative mating following selection

Shepherd¹,

Kinghorn²

1994

Genet. Sel. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A deterministic model is presented of assortative mating following selection on either phenotype or best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) estimates of breeding values (ebv) in an infinite population. The model is based on modified theory for multi-par rapport à la panmixie est de 11%, 24% et 66%, pour des taux respectifs de sélection sur la vge BLUP de 10%, 50% et 90%. Une simulation stochastique a été faite pour évaluer la précision du modèle déterministe. Les résultats, aussi bien déterministes que stochastiques, montrent un avantage de l'homogamie sur la panmixie qui est, dans certaines situations, nettement supérieur aux résultats antérieurement publiés. homogamie / sélection / BLUP / groupes génétiques / noyau ouvert b

show abstract

Short-term Changes in the Variance: 1. Changes in the Additive Variance

Walsh¹,

Lynch²

2018

Oxford Scholarship Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selection changes the additive-genetic variance (and hence the response in the mean) by both changing allele frequencies and by generating correlations among alleles at different loci (linkage disequilibrium). Such selection-induced correlations can be generated even between unlinked loci, and (generally) are negative, such that alleles increasing trait values tend to become increasingly negative correlated under direction or stabilizing selection, and positively correlated under disruptive selection. Such changes in the additive-genetic variance from disequilibrium is called the Bulmer effects. For a large number of loci, the amount of change can be predicted from the Bulmer equation, the analog of the breeder's equation, but now for the change in the variance. Upon cessation of selection, any disequilibrium decays away, and the variances revert back to their additive-genic variances (the additive variance in the absence of disequilibrium). Assortative mating also generates such disequilibrium.

show abstract

Assortative mating and artificial selection : a second appraisal

Abstract: SummaryThe impact on selection response of the positive assortative mating of selected parents was determined for a 2 generation cycle. Relative

Cited by 6 publications

References 2 publications

A deterministic multi-tier model of assortative mating following selection

A deterministic multi-tier model of assortative mating following selection

A deterministic multi-tier model of assortative mating following selection

Short-term Changes in the Variance: 1. Changes in the Additive Variance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About