Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 148, Supplement 2, pp 633–642 | Cite as

What ‘animal models’ can and cannot tell ornithologists about the genetics of wild populations

  • Erik Postma
  • Anne Charmantier
Review

Abstract

Good estimates of the genetic parameters of natural populations, such as heritability, are essential for both understanding how genetic variation is maintained and estimating a population’s evolutionary potential. Long-term studies on birds are especially amenable for calculating such estimates because of the ease with which pedigrees can be inferred. Recent ‘animal model’ methodology, originally developed by animal breeders to identify animals of high genetic merit, has been applied to natural bird populations of known pedigree. Animal models are more powerful than traditional analyses such as parent–offspring regression because they use all of the available pedigree information simultaneously. In doing so, they can accommodate common phenomena like selection and inbreeding and are especially suitable for the complex and incomplete pedigrees typical of natural populations. Animal models not only provide a better way of estimating genetic and environmental variance components, they also allow individual phenotypes to be separated into their genetic and environmental components. Here we aim to provide the interested ornithologist with an accessible entry into the vast and sometimes daunting quantitative genetics literature and, in particular, into the literature on the animal model. We outline not only the possibilities offered by the animal model for the accurate estimation of genetic parameters in the wild but also associated potential pitfalls and limitations. On the whole, we aim to provide an accessible and up-to-date overview of the rapidly developing and exciting field of evolutionary genetics applied to long-term studies of wild bird populations.

Keywords

Breeding value Evolution Heritability Natural selection Pedigree 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is the result of many fruitful discussions over the past years with numerous people, including Jon Brommer, Henrik Jensen, Kate Lessells, Loeske Kruuk, Arie van Noordwijk, John Quinn, Ben Sheldon, Marcel Visser, as well as Dan Nussey and Barbara Tschirren, who also provided constructive comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. E.P. is financially supported by a UNSW Vice-Chancellors Postdoctoral Fellowship.

References

  1. Arnold SJ, Wade MJ (1984) On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: Theory. Evolution 38:709–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett PM, Owens IPF (2002) Evolutionary ecology of birds: Life histories, mating systems and extinction. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Blondel J, Thomas DW, Charmantier A, Perret P, Bourgault P, Lambrechts MM (2006) A thirty-year study of phenotypic and genetic variation of blue tits in Mediterranean habitat mosaics. Bioscience 56:661–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boag PT, van Noordwijk AJ (1987) Quantitative genetics in wild bird populations. In: Cooke F, Buckley PA (eds) Avian genetics. Academic Press, London, pp 45–78Google Scholar
  5. Boyce SM, Perrins CM (1987) Optimizing great tit clutch size in a fluctuating environment. Ecology 68:142–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burger R, Lynch M (1995) Evolution and extinction in a changing environment—a quantitative genetic analysis. Evolution 49:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron ND (1997) Selection indices and prediction of genetic merit in animal breeding. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Charmantier A, Réale D (2005) How do misassigned paternities affect the estimation of heritability in the wild? Mol Ecol 14:2839–2850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charmantier A, Perrins C, McCleery RH, Sheldon BC (2006a) Age-dependent genetic variance in a life-history trait in the mute swan. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charmantier A, Perrins C, McCleery RH, Sheldon BC (2006b) Evolutionary response to selection on clutch size in a long-term study of the mute swan. Am Nat 167:453–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Endler JA (1977) Geographic variation, speciation, and clines. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, Harlow, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Gienapp P, Postma E, Visser ME (2006) Why breeding time has not responded to selection for earlier breeding in a songbird population. Evolution 60:2381–2388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Welham SJ, Thompson R (2002) ASReml user guide release 1.0. VSN International, Hemel HempsteadGoogle Scholar
  16. Grafen A, Hails R (2002) Modern statistics for the life sciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford,Google Scholar
  17. Grant PR (2001) Reconstructing the evolution of birds on islands: 100 years of research. Oikos 92:385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Groeneveld E, Kovac M (1990) A generalized computing procedure for setting up and solving mixed linear models. J Dairy Sci 73:513–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hailman JP (1986) The heritability concept applied to wild birds. Curr Ornithol 4:71–95Google Scholar
  21. Hughes L (2000) Biological consequences of global warming: Is the signal already apparent? Trends Ecol Evol 15:56–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones AG, Ardren WR (2003) Methods of parentage analysis in natural populations. Mol Ecol 12:2511–2523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keller LF, Waller DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:230–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kingsolver JG, Hoekstra HE, Hoekstra JM, Berrigan D, Vignieri SN, Hill CE, Hoang A, Gibert P, Beerli P (2001) The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am Nat 157:245–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kruuk LEB (2004) Estimating genetic parameters in natural populations using the ‘animal model‘. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 359:873–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kruuk LEB, Hadfield J (2007) How to (reliably) separate genetic and environmental causes of similarity between relatives. J Evol Biol (in press). doi:  10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01377.x
  27. Kruuk LEB, Merilä J, Sheldon BC (2001) Phenotypic selection on a heritable size trait revisited. Am Nat 158:557–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kruuk LEB, Merilä J, Sheldon BC (2003) When environmental variation short-circuits natural selection. Trends Ecol Evol 18:207–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lande R, Shannon S (1996) The role of genetic variation in adaptation and population persistence in a changing environment. Evolution 50:434–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  31. McCarty JP (2001) Ecological consequences of recent climate change. Conserv Biol 15:320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCleery RH, Pettifor RA, Armbruster P, Meyer K, Sheldon BC, Perrins CM (2004) Components of variance underlying fitness in a natural population of the great tit Parus major. Am Nat 164:E1–E11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merilä J, Sheldon BC (2001) Avian quantitative genetics. Curr Ornithol 16:179–255Google Scholar
  34. Merilä J, Sheldon BC, Kruuk LEB (2001) Explaining stasis: microevolutionary studies in natural populations. Genetica 112:199–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meyer K (1989) Restricted maximum likelihood to estimate variance components for animal models with several random effects using a derivative-free algorithm. Genet Sel Evol 21:317–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer K (2006) WOMBAT—digging deep for quantitative genetic analyses by restricted maximum likelihood. In: Proc 8th World Congr Genet Appl Livestock Prod. Communication No. 27-14Google Scholar
  37. Mrode RA (1996) Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Neumaier A, Groeneveld E (1998) Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of covariances in sparse linear models. Genet Sel Evol 30:3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Petrie M, Kempenaers B (1998) Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol Evol 13:52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Postma E (2006) Implications of the difference between true and predicted breeding values for the study of natural selection and micro-evolution. J Evol Biol 19:309–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Postma E, Van Noordwijk AJ (2005a) Gene flow maintains a large genetic difference in clutch size at a small spatial scale. Nature 433:65–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Postma E, Van Noordwijk AJ (2005b) Genetic variation for clutch size in natural populations of birds from a reaction norm perspective. Ecology 86:2344–2357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Price TD, Boag PT (1987) Selection in natural populations of birds. In: Buckley PA, Cooke F (eds) Avian genetics. Academic Press, London, pp 257–287Google Scholar
  44. Price TD, Kirkpatrick M, Arnold SJ (1988) Directional selection and the evolution of breeding date in birds. Science 240:798–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Sheldon BC, Kruuk LEB, Merilä J (2003) Natural selection and the inheritance of breeding time and clutch size in the collared flycatcher. Evolution 57:406–420PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Stinchcombe JR, Rutter MT, Burdick DS, Tiffin P, Rausher MD, Mauricio R (2002) Testing for environmentally induced bias in phenotypic estimates of natural selection: theory and practice. Am Nat 160:511–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Van der Jeugd HP, McCleery RH (2002) Effects of spatial autocorrelation, natal philopatry and phenotypic plasticity on the heritability of laying date. J Evol Biol 15:380–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Visser ME, van Noordwijk AJ, Tinbergen JM, Lessells CM (1998) Warmer springs lead to mistimed reproduction in great tits (Parus major). Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1867–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walther GR, Post E, Convey P, Menzel A, Parmesan C, Beebee TJC, Fromentin JM, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bairlein F (2002) Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416:389–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, UMR CNRS 5175Montpellier Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations