Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-sdd8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-13T18:48:45.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection in the presence of a genotype by environment interaction: response in environmental sensitivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R. Kolmodin ,
E. Strandberg ,
H. Jorjani  and
B. Danell
R. Kolmodin*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, PO Box 7023, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
E. Strandberg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, PO Box 7023, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
H. Jorjani
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, PO Box 7023, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
B. Danell
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, PO Box 7023, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
† E-mail:Rebecka.Kolmodin@hgen.slu.se
Get access

Abstract

The effect of selection for high phenotypic value in the presence of a genotype by environment interaction (G ✕ E, i.e. genetic variation for environmental sensitivity) and an improving environment was studied in a simulation. Environmental sensitivity was evaluated by using reaction norms, which describe the phenotype expressed by a genotype as a function of the environment. Three types of reaction norms (linear, quadratic and sigmoid), and two selection schemes (mass selection and progeny test selection) were studied. Environmental sensitivity was measured as the weighted average of the absolute value of the first derivative of the reaction norm function. Results showed that environmental sensitivity increased in response to selection for high phenotypic value in the presence of G ✕ E and an improving environment when reaction norms were linear or quadratic. For sigmoid reaction norms, approximating threshold characters, environmental sensitivity increased within the environmental range encompassing the threshold. With mass selection and/or non-linear reaction norms, environmental sensitivity increased even without environmental change.

Keywords

genotype environment interactionphenotypic plasticityselectionsimulation

Information

Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 76 , Issue 3 , June 2003 , pp. 375 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bradshaw, A. 1965. Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Advances in Genetics 13: 115–155.Google Scholar
Cahaner, A. and Leenstra, F. 1992. Effects of high temperature on growth and efficiency of male and female broilers from lines selected for high weight gain, favourable feed conversion, and high or low fat content. Poultry Science 71: 1237–1250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calus, M. P. L., Groen, A. F. and Jong, G. de. 2002. Genotype x environment interaction for protein yield in Dutch dairy cattle as quantified by different models. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 3115–3123.Google Scholar
Ceccarelli, S. 1994. Specific adaptation and breeding for marginal conditions. Euphytica 77: 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S. and Grando, S. 1991. Selection environment and environmental sensitivity in barley. Euphytica 57: 157–167.Google Scholar
David, J. R., Capy, P. and Gauthier, J. 1990. Abdominal pigmentation and growth temperature in Drosophila melanogaster: similarities and differences in the norms of reaction of successive segments. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 3: 429–445.Google Scholar
David, J. R., Gibert, P., Gravot, E., Petavy, G., Morin, J., Karan, D. and Moretau, B. 1997. Phenotypic plasticity and developmental temperature in Drosophila: analysis and significance of reaction norms of morphometrical traits. Journal of Thermal Biology 22: 441–451.Google Scholar
David, J. R., Moretau, B., Gauthier, J. P., Pétavy, G., Stockel, A. and Imasheva, A. G. 1994. Reaction norms of size characters in relation to growth temperature in Drosophila melanogaster: an isofemale analysis. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 26: 229–251.Google Scholar
Delpuech, J., Moretau, B., Chiche, J., Pla, E., Vouidibio, J. and David, J. R. 1995. Phenotypic plasticity and reaction norms in temperate and tropical populations of Drosophila melanogaster: ovarian size and developmental temperature. Evolution 49: 670–675.Google Scholar
DeWitt, T. J., Sih, A. and Wilson, D. S. 1998. Costs and limits to phenotypic plasticity. Tr ends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 77–81.Google Scholar
Fairbairn, D. J. and Yadlovski, D. E. 1997. Coevolution of traits determining migratory tendency: correlated response to selection on wing morphology. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 10: 495–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1990. Selection in different environments: effects on environmental sensitivity (reaction norm) and on mean performance. Genetical Research 56: 57–70.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. and Mackay, T. F. C. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics, fourth edition. Longman Group, Essex.Google Scholar
Finlay, K. W. and Wilkinson, G. N. 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 14: 742–754.Google Scholar
Gavrilets, S. and Scheiner, S. M. 1993. The genetics of phenotypic plasticity. V. Evolution of reaction norm shape. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 6: 31–48.Google Scholar
Gibert, P. and Jong, G. de . 2001. Temperature dependence of development rate and adult size in Drosophila species: biophysical parameters. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14: 267–276.Google Scholar
Gibert, P., Moretau, B., Moretau, J. and David, J. R. 1996. Growth temperature and adult pigmentation in two Drosophila sibling species: an adaptive convergence of reaction norms in sympatric populations? Evolution 50: 2346–2353.Google Scholar
Hillesheim, E. and Stearns, S. C. 1991. The responses of Drosophila melanogaster to artificial selection on body weight and its phenotypic plasticity in two larval food environments. Evolution 45: 1909–1923.Google Scholar
Holloway, G. J. and Brakefield, P. M. 1995. Artificial selection of reaction norms of wing pattern elements in Bicyclus anynana. Heredity 74: 91–99.Google Scholar
Jong, G. de. 1995. Phenotypic plasticity as a product of selection in a variable environment. The American Naturalist 145: 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jong, G. de and Bijma, P. 2002. Selection and phenotypic plasticity in evolutionary biology and animal breeding. Livestock Production Science 78: 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolmodin, R., Strandberg, E., Madsen, P., Jensen, J. and Jorjani, H. 2002. Genotype by environment interaction in Nordic dairy cattle studied using reaction norms. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 52: 11–24.Google Scholar
Morin, J. P., Moretau, B., Petavy, G. and David, J. R. 1999. Divergence of reaction norms of size characters between tropical and temperate populations of Drosphila melanogaster and D. simulans. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12: 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roff, D. A. 1994. The evolution of dimorphic traits: predicting the genetic correlation between environments. Genetics 136: 395–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheiner, S. M. 1993. Genetics and evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24: 35–68.Google Scholar
Scheiner, S. M. and Lyman, R. F. 1989. The genetics of phenotypic plasticity. I. Heritability. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2: 95–107.Google Scholar
Scheiner, S. M. and Lyman, R. F. 1991. The genetics of phenotypic plasticity. II. Response to selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 4: 23–50.Google Scholar
Scheiner, S. M. and Yampolski, L. Y. 1998. The evolution of Daphnia pulex in a temporally varying environment. Genetical Research 72: 25–37.Google Scholar
Simmonds, N. W. 1981. Genotype (G), environment (E) and GE components of crop yields. Experimental Agriculture 17: 355–362.Google Scholar
Simmonds, N. W. 1991. Selection for local adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 82: 363–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stearns, S. C. 1989. The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity. BioScience 39: 436–445.Google Scholar
Suzuki, D. T., Griffiths, A. J. F. and Lewontin, R. C. 1981. An introduction to genetic analysis. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Weis, A. E. and Gorman, W. L. 1990. Measuring selection on reaction norms: an exploration of the Eurosta-solidago system. Evolution 44: 820–831.Google ScholarPubMed
Wijngaarden, P. J. and Brakefield, P. M. 2001. Lack of response to artificial selection on the slope of reaction norms for seasonal polyphenism in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Heredity 87: 410–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woltereck, R. 1909. Weitere experimentelle Untersuchungen über Artveränderung, speziell über das Wesen quantitativer Artunterschiede bei Daphniden. Ve r handlungen der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft 1909: 110–172.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S., Özkan, S., Türkmut, T. and Siegel, P. B. 2001. Responses to heat stress in commercial and local broiler stocks. 1. Performance traits. British Poultry Science 42: 149–152.Google Scholar
Yunis, R. and Cahaner, A. 1999. The effects of the Naked Neck (Na) and Frizzle (F) genes on growth and meat yield of broilers and their interactions with ambient temperatures and potential growth rate. Poultry Science 78: 1347–1352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed