Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two theories of sex and variation

  • Published:
Experientia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Abplanalp, H., Selection procedures for poultry stocks with many hatches. Poultry Sci.35 (1956) 1285–1304.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adams, M. W., Ellinghoe, A. H., and Rossman, E. C., Biological uniformity and disease epidemics. Bioscience21 (1971) 1067–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Allard, R. W., Relationship between genetic diversity and consistency of performance in different environments. Crop Sci.1 (1961) 127–133.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Allard, R. W., and Adams, J., Population studies in predominantly self-fertilizing species. XIII. Interogenotypic competition and population structure in barley and wheat. Am. Nat.103 (1969) 621–645.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Antonovics, J., and Ellstrand, N., Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sex. I. A test of the frequency-dependent selection hypothesis. Evolution38 (1984) 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Antonovics, J., and Primack, R., Experimental ecological genetics inPlantago. VI. The demography of seedling transplants ofP. lanceolata. J. Ecol.70 (1982) 55–75.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barrett, J. A., The evolutionary consequences of monoculture, in: Genetic Consequences of Man-made Change, pp. 209–248. Eds J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook. Academic Press, London 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Battaglia, B., and Smith, H., The Darwinian fitness of polymorphic and monomorphic populations ofDrosophila pseudoobscura at 16°C. Heredity16 (1961) 475–484.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beardmore, J. A., Dobzhansky, T., and Pavlovsky, O., An attempt to compare the fitness of polymorphic and monomorphic experimental populations ofDrosophila pseudoobscura. Heredity14 (1960) 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bell, G., The Masterpiece of Nature. Croom Helm, London 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Berger, R. D., Infection rates ofCercospora apii in mixed populations of susceptible and tolerant celery. Phytopathology63 (1973) 535–537.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bhalla, S. C., and Sokal, R. R., Competition among genotypes in the housefly at varying densities and proportions (thegreen strain). Evolution18 (1964) 213–330.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Birley, A. J., and Beardmore, J. A., Genetical composition, temperature, density and selection in an enzyme polymorphism. Heredity39 (1977) 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Blyth, D. E., Eisemann, R. L., and de Lacy, I. H., Two-way pattern analysis of a large data set to evaluate genotypic adaptation. Heredity37 (1976) 215–230.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Borlaug, N. E., The use of multilineal or composite varieties to control airborne epidemic diseases of self-pollinated crop plants. Proc. 1st int. Wheat Genetics Symp. (1959), pp. 12–26.

  16. Breese, E. L., The measurement and significance of genotype-environment interactions in grasses. Heredity24 (1969) 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Burdon, J. J., and Chilvers, G. A., Epidemiology ofPythium-induced damping-off in mixed-species seedling stands. Ann. appl. Biol.82 (1976) 233–240.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Burdon, J. J., and Marshall, D. R., Biological control and the reproductive mode of weeds. J. appl. Ecol.18 (1981) 649–658.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Burdon, J. J., and Whitbread, R., Rates of increase of barley mildew in mixed stands of barley and wheat. J. appl. Ecol.16 (1979) 253–258.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Butcher, A. C., Croft, J., and Grindle, M., Use of genotype-environment interaction analysis in the study of natural populations ofAspergillus nidulans. Heredity29 (1972) 263–283.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cahn, M. G., and Harper, J. L., The biology of the leaf-mark poly-morphism inTrifolium repens L. I. Distribution of phenotypes at a local scale. Heredity37 (1976) 309–325.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Charles, A. H., Differential survival of plant types in swards. J. Br. Grassld Soc.19 (1964) 198–204.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dalton, D. C., Selection of growth in mice on two diets. Anim. Prod.9 (1967) 425–434.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Davies, M. S., Physiological differences among populations ofAnthoxanthum odoratum L. collected from the Park Grass Experiment, Rothamsted. IV. Response to potassium and magnesium. J. appl. Ecol.12 (1975) 953–964.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Davies, M. S., and Snaydon, R. W., Ibid.Physiological differences among populations ofAnthoxanthum odoratum L. collected from the Park Grass Experiment, Rothamsted. I. Response to calcium. J. appl. Ecol.10 (1973) 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Davies, M. S., and Snaydon, R. W., Ibid.Physiological differences among populations ofAnthoxanthum odoratum L. collected from the Park Grass Experiment, Rothamsted. II. Response to aluminium J. appl. Ecol.10 (1973) 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Davies, M. S., and Snaydon, R. W., Ibid.Physiological differences among populations ofAnthoxanthum odoratum L. collected from the Park Grass Experiment, Rothamsted. III. Response to phosphate. J. appl. Ecol.11 (1974) 699–708.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Davies, M. S., and Snaydon, R. W., Rapid population differentiation in a mosaic environment. III. Measures of selection pressures. Heredity36 (1976) 59–66.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dobzhansky, T., Lewontin, R. C., and Pavlovsky, O., The capacity for increase in chromosomally polymorphic and monomorphic populations ofDrosophila pseudoobscura. Heredity19 (1964) 597–614.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dobzhansky, T., and Pavlovsky, O., A further study of fitness of chromosomally polymorphic and monomorphic populations ofDrosophila pseudoobscura. Heredity16 (1961) 169–179.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ellstrand, N., and Antonovics, J., Experimental studies on the evolutionary significance of sexual reproduction. II. Resource partitioning among sibs. Evolution39 (1985) 657–666.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Engelke, H., Versuche mit Weizenmischsaaten. J. Landwirt.83 (1935) 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

  33. England, F., Competition in mixtures of herbage grasses. J. appl. Ecol.5 (1968) 227–242.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Falconer, D. S. Selection of mice for growth on high and low planes of nutrition. Genet. Res., Cambridge1 (1960) 91–113.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Falconer, D. S., and Latyszewski, M., The environment in relation to selection. J. Genet.51 (1952) 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Frankel, O. H., The dynamics of plant breeding. J. Aust. Inst. agric. Sci.24 (1958) 112–123.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fripp, Y. J., and Caten, C. E., Genotype-environmental interaction inSchizophyllum commune. Heredity27 (1971) 393–407.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ghiselin, M., The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex. University of California Press, Berkeley, California 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Glesener, R. R., Recombination in a simulated predator-prey interaction. Am. Zool19 (1979) 763–771.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gooding, H. J., Jennings, D. L., and Topham, P. B., A genotype-environment experiment on strawberries in Scotland. Heredity34 (1975) 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gowe, R. S., Environment and poultry-breeding problems. II. A comparison of seven SC White Leghorn strains housed in laying batteries and floor pens. Poultry Sci.35 (1956) 430–435.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gowe, R. S., and Wakely, W. S., Environment and poultry-breeding problems. I. The influence of several environments on the egg production and viability of different genotypes. Poultry Sci.33 (1954) 691–703.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Griffiths, D. J., Cereal, bean and Brassicae breeding. Rep. Welsh Plant Breeding Sta. 1950–1956, pp. 66–93.

  44. Gustafsson, A., The cooperation of genotypes in barley. Hereditas39 (1953) 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gustafsson, A., Mutations, viability and population structure. Acta agric. scand.4 (1953) 601–632.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gutteridge, H. S., and O'Neill, The relative effects of environment and heredity upon body measurements and production characteristics in poultry. II. Period of egg production. Sci. Agric.22 (1942) 482–491.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hamilton, W. D., Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos35 (1980) 282–290.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hanson, A. A., Garber, R. J., and Myers, W. M., Yields of individual and combined apomictic strains of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Agron. J.44 (1952) 125–128.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Harberd, D. J., Some observations on natural clones ofFestuca ovina. New Phytol.61 (1962) 85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Harberd, D. J., Observations on natural clones inHolcus mollis. New Phytol.66 (1967) 401–408.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Harberd, D. J., and Owen, M., Some experimental observations on the clone structure of a natural population ofFestuca rubra. New Phytol.68 (1969) 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hardin, R., and Bell, A. E., Two-way selection for body weight inTribolium on two levels of nutrition. Genet. Res., Cambridge9 (1967) 309–330.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hill, J. F., and Nordstrog, A. W., Efficiency of performance testing in poultry. Poultry Sci.35 (1956) 256–265.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hull, P., and Gowe, R. S., The importance of interactions detected between genotype and environmental factors for characters of economic significance in poultry.

  55. Hutchinson, J. B., and Ghose, R. L. M., Studies in crop ecology, I. Indian J. agric. Sci.7 (1937) 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hutson, V., and Law, R., Evolution of recombination in populations experiencing frequency-dependent selection with time delay. Proc. R. Soc. London (B)213 (1981) 345–359.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Imam, A. G., and Allard, R. W., Population studies in predominantly self-pollinated species. VI. Genetic variability between and within natural populations of wild oats,Avena fatua L., from differing habitats in California. Genetics51 (1965) 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Jaenike, J., An hypothesis to account for the maintenance of sex within populations. Evol. Theory3 (1978) 191–194.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Jensen, N. F., Intra-varietal diversification in oat-breeding. Agronom. J.44 (1952) 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kays, S., and Harper, J. L., Components and regulation of a natural population ofRumex acetosella L. J. Ecol.56 (1968) 421–431.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kearsey, M. J., The interaction of food supply and competition in two lines ofDrosophila melanogaster. Heredity20 (1976) 169–181.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kesavan, V., Crisp, P., Gray, A. R., and Dowker, B. D., Genotypic and environmental effects on the maturity time of autumn cauliflowers. Theor. appl. Genet.47 (1976) 133–140.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Khan, M. A., Putwain, P. D., and Bradshaw, A. D., Population interrelationships. 2. Frequency-dependent fitness inLinum. Heredity34 (1975) 145–163.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Killick, R. J., and Simmonds, N. W., Specific gravity of potato tubers as a character showing small genotype-environment interactions. Heredity32 (1974) 109–112.

    Google Scholar 

  65. King, C. E., Adaptation of rotifers to seasonal variation. Ecology53 (1972) 408–418.

    Google Scholar 

  66. King, J. W. B., and Young, G. B., A study of three breeds of sheep wintered in four environments. J. agric. Sci.45 (1955) 331–338.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Leonard, K. J., Factors affecting rates of stem-rust increase in mixed plantings of susceptible and resistant oat varieties. Phytopathology59 (1969) 1845–1850.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Levin, D. A., Pest pressure and recombination systems in plant. Am. Nat.109 (1975) 437–451.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lewontin, R. C., The effects of poulation density and composition on viability inDrosophila melanogaster. Evolution9 (1955) 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Lovett-Doust, L., Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal perennialRanunculus repens). II. The dynamics of leaves and a reciprocal tranplant-replant experiment. J. Ecol.69 (1981) 757–768.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Lowry, D. C., Lerner, I. M., and Taylor, L. W., Intraflock genetic merit under floor and cage management. Poultry Sci.35 (1956) 1034–1043.

    Google Scholar 

  72. McGraw, J. B. and Antonovics, J., Experimental ecology ofDryas octopetala ecotypes. I. Ecotypic differentiation and life-cycle stages of selection. J. Ecol.71 (1983) 879–897.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Maynard Smith, J., What use is sex? J. theor. Biol.30 (1971) 319–335.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Maynard Smith, J., A short-term advantage for sex and recombination through sib-competition. J. theor. Biol.63 (1976) 245–258.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Moav, R., and Wohlfarth, G. W., Magnification through competition of genetic differences in yield capacity of carp. Heredity33 (1974) 181–202.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Nordstrog, A. W., and Kempthorne, O., Importance of genotype-environment interactions in random sample poultry tests in: Biometrical Genetics, pp. 159–168. Ed. O. Kempthorne. Pergamon Press, London 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Nuding, J., Leistung und Ertragsstruktur von Winterweizensorten in Reinsaat und Mischung in verschiedenen deutschen Anbaugebieten. Pflanzenbau12 (1936) 382–447.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Ohta, S., Chromosomal polymorphism and capacity for increase under near optimal conditions. Heredity22 (1967) 169–185.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Orozco, F., A dynamic study of genotype-environment interaction with egg-laying ofTribolium castaneum. Heredity37 (1976) 157–171.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Osborne, R., Sexual maturity in brown Leghorns. The interaction of genotype and environment. Proc R. Soc. Edinburgh (B)64 (1952) 445–455.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Park, Y. I., Hansen, C. T., Chung, C. S., and Chapman, A. B., Influence of feeding regime on the effects of selection for postweaning gain in the rat. Genetics54 (1966) 1315–1327.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Pederson, D. G., The stability of varietal performance over years. I. The distribution of seasonal effects for wheat grain yield. Heredity32 (1974) 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Pederson, D. G., Environmental stress, heterozygote advantage and genotype-environment interaction inArabidopsis. Heredity23 (1968) 127–138.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Perkins, J. M., and Jinks, J. L., Environmental and genotype-environ mental components of variability. III: Multiple lines and crosses. Heredity23 (1968) 339–356.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Pooni, H. S., Jinks, J. L., and Jayasekara, N. E. M., An investigation of gene action and genotype × environment interaction in two crosses ofNicotiana rustica by triple test cross and inbred line analysis. Heredity41 (1978) 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Price, M. V., and Waser, N. M., Population structure, frequency-dependent selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Evolution36 (1982) 35–43.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Rhodes, I., The yield, canopy structure and light interception of two rye grass varieties in mixed and monoculture. J. Br. Grassld Soc.24 (1969) 123–127.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Roy, S. K., Interaction between rice varieties. J. Genet.57 (1960) 137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Sandfaer, J., Virkningen af det naturlige udvalg ved foraedlingsarbejdet med selvbefrugtende kornater. Tidsskr. PlAvl58 (1954) 333–354.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Seaton, A. P. C., and Antonovics, J., Population inter-relationships. I. Evolution in mixtures ofDrosophila mutants. Heredity22 (1967) 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Simmonds, N. W., Bananas. London 1959.

  92. Simmonds, N. W., Variability in crop plants, its use and conservation. Biol. Rev.37 (1962) 442–465.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Snaydon, R. W., Rapid population differentiation in a mosaic environment I. The response ofAnthoxanthum odoratum populations to soils. Evolution24 (1970) 257–269.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Snaydon, R. W., and Davies, M. S., Rapid population differentiation in a mosaic environment. II. Morphological variations inAnthoxanthum odoratum. Evolution26 (1972) 390–405.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Snaydon, R. W., and Davies, M. S., Ibid. IV. Populations ofAnthoxanthum odoratum at sharp boundaries. Heredity37 (1976) 9–25.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Sokal, R. R., and Sullivan, R. L., Competition between mutant and wildtype house-fly strains at varying densities. Ecology63 (1963) 314–322.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Sprague, G. F., and Federer, A comparison of variance components in corn yield. II. Agronom. J.43 (1951) 535–541.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Sumner, D. R., and Littrell, Influence of tillage, planting date inoculum survival and mixed populations on epidemiology of southern corn leaf blight. Phytopathology64 (1974) 168–173.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Thorpe, H. C., Wheat breeding in Kenya. Proc. 1st int Wheat Genetics Symp. (1959) pp. 55–63.

  100. Turkington, R., and Harper, J. L., The growth, distribution and neighbour relationships ofTrifolium repens in a permanent pasture. IV. Fine-scale biotic differentiation. J. Ecol.67 (1979) 245–254.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Van Valen, L., A new evolutionary law. Evol. Theory1 (1973) 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Westerman, J. M., Genotype-environment interaction and developmental regulation inArabidopsis thaliana. Heredity26 (1971) 93–206.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Westerman, J. M., Genotype-environment interaction and developmental regulation inArabidopsis thaliana. Heredity26 (1971) 383–395.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Westerman, J. M., and Lawrence, Genotype-environment interaction and developmental regulation inArabidopsis thaliana. Heredity25 (1970) 609–627.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Williams, G. C., Sex and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Witcombe, J. R., and Whittington, W. J., A study of the genotype by environment interaction shown by germinating seeds ofBrassica napus. Heredity26 (1971) 397–411.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Wolfe, M. S. and Barrett, J. A., Can we lead the pathogen astray? Pl. Dis.64 (1980) 148–155.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Wolfe, M. S., Barrett, J. A., and Jenkins, J. E. E., The use of cultivar mixtures for disease control, in: Strategies for the Control of Cereal Diseases, pp. 73–80. Eds J. F. Jenkyn and R. T. Plumb. Blackwells, Oxford 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Wolfe, M. S., Minchin, P. N., and Wright, S. E., Effects of variety mixtures. A. Rep. Pl. Breeding Inst. (1975).

  110. Yamada, Y., and Bell, A. E., Selection for larval growth inTribolium under two levels of nutrition. Genet. Res., Cambridge13 (1969) 175–195.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Young, G. B., A study of genotype-environment interaction in mice. J. agric. Sci.43 (1953) 218–222.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Zuberi, M. I., and Gale, J. S., Variation in wild populations ofPapaver dubium. X. Genotype-environment interaction associated with differences in soil. Heredity36 (1976) 359–368.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biology Department, McGill University, 1205 Ave Dr Penfield, H3A 1B1, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    G. Bell

  2. School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9QC, Brighton, (England)

    G. Bell

Authors
  1. G. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bell, G. Two theories of sex and variation. Experientia 41, 1235–1245 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01952066

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01952066

Key words

Search

Navigation