Author
Listed:
- James L Kitchen
- Robin G Allaby
Abstract
Computational models of evolutionary processes are increasingly required to incorporate multiple and diverse sources of data. A popular feature to include in population genetics models is spatial extension, which reflects more accurately natural populations than does a mean field approach. However, such models necessarily violate the mean field assumptions of classical population genetics, as do natural populations in the real world. Recently, it has been questioned whether classical approaches are truly applicable to the real world. Individual based models (IBM) are a powerful and versatile approach to achieve integration in models. In this study an IBM was used to examine how populations of plants deviate from classical expectations under spatial extension. Populations of plants that used three different mating strategies were placed in a range of arena sizes giving crowded to sparse occupation densities. Using a measure of population density, the pollen communication distance (Pcd), the deviation exhibited by outbreeding populations differed from classical mean field expectations by less than 5% when Pcd was less than 1, and over this threshold value the deviation significantly increased. Populations with an intermediate mating strategy did not have such a threshold and deviated directly with increasing isolation between individuals. Populations with a selfing strategy were influenced more by the mating strategy than by increased isolation. In all cases pollen dispersal was more influential than seed dispersal. The IBM model showed that mean field calculations can be reasonably applied to natural outbreeding plant populations that occur at a density in which individuals are less than the average pollen dispersal distance from their neighbors.
Suggested Citation
James L Kitchen & Robin G Allaby, 2012.
"The Limits of Mean-Field Heterozygosity Estimates under Spatial Extension in Simulated Plant Populations,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-9, August.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0043254
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043254
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0043254. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.