2004
DOI: 10.1644/bpr-017.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Morphological Change in Wild and Captive Oldfield Mice Peromyscus Polionotus Subgriseus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
54
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
54
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It is widely accepted that morphology and physiological processes evolve in response to environmental stimuli to enhance individual survival and reproductive success. In contrast to nature, the captive environment is confined, requires lower activity levels, is limited in terms of diet, requires less energy expenditure to procure food, and has a lower predation risk (McPhee 2004). Captive animals respond to this less demanding environment through physiological and morphological evolution that results over time in phenotypic divergence from their wild conspecifics (McPhee ORIGINAL PAPER 2003a;McPhee 2003b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is widely accepted that morphology and physiological processes evolve in response to environmental stimuli to enhance individual survival and reproductive success. In contrast to nature, the captive environment is confined, requires lower activity levels, is limited in terms of diet, requires less energy expenditure to procure food, and has a lower predation risk (McPhee 2004). Captive animals respond to this less demanding environment through physiological and morphological evolution that results over time in phenotypic divergence from their wild conspecifics (McPhee ORIGINAL PAPER 2003a;McPhee 2003b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each breeding protocol was practiced on two replicate populations to allow assessment of the roles of drift vs. artificial selection vs. natural selection in causing changes through the generations. The use of a common founder stock precluded the possibility that founder effects (differences between lines arising either from random sampling of founders to create experimental populations or from establishment of populations from distinct and often undocumented wild populations) were the cause of observed differences – a potential problem that exists in many studies of the effects of captivity [36,37]. Housing, handling, breeding, and data collection protocols were carefully controlled, and possible confounding factors of sex and litter number (parity) were treated as covariates in analyses to control statistically for those effects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nonetheless, the number of generations that animals have been maintained in captivity must be considered when interpreting data. This is because captive populations diverge in phenotype from their wild counterparts over generations in captivity (Trut, 1999;McPhee, 2004;Trut et al, 2004;O'Regan & Kitchener, 2005). The differences become more pronounced with an increase in the number of generations and often result in distinct populations (McPhee, 2004).…”
Section: Known Ancestry Hybridsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is because captive populations diverge in phenotype from their wild counterparts over generations in captivity (Trut, 1999;McPhee, 2004;Trut et al, 2004;O'Regan & Kitchener, 2005). The differences become more pronounced with an increase in the number of generations and often result in distinct populations (McPhee, 2004). Furthermore, the expression of novel traits in captive populations may be the result of inbreeding or, alternatively, the captive environment may not select strongly against particular phenotypic characters.…”
Section: Known Ancestry Hybridsmentioning
confidence: 99%