Skip to main content
Log in

Wolf et al. reply

  • Brief Communications Arising
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

Replying to: F. Massol & P. Crochet Nature 451, 10.1038/nature06743 (2008).

The more an individual stands to lose, the more cautious that individual should be. We have shown1 that this basic principle gives rise to consistent individual differences in risk-related behaviour whenever individuals have different future fitness expectations. To illustrate this, we considered a model where differences in fitness expectations result from a trade-off between current and future reproduction. Massol and Crochet argue2 that the emergence of such differences depends on the shape of this trade-off. Their claim is based on the technical argument that our model has a ‘branching point’ only for a limited range of the trade-off parameter β. In contrast, we show here that the emergence of individual differences is a robust phenomenon that does not depend on such details. Our analysis illustrates the important insight that a branching point is not needed for the emergence of polymorphism.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1: Emergence of a polymorphism in the presence and in the absence of a branching point.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wolf, M., van Doorn, G. S., Leimar, O. & Weissing, F. J. Life-history trade-offs favour the evolution of animal personalities. Nature 447, 581–584 (2007)

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Massol, F. & Crochet, P. Do animal personalities emerge? Nature 451 10.1038/nature06743 (2008)

  3. Geritz, S. A. H., Kisdi, E., Meszena, G. & Metz, J. A. J. Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree. Evol. Ecol. 12, 35–57 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Waxman, D. & Gavrilets, S. 20 questions on adaptive dynamics. J. Evol. Biol. 18, 1139–1154 (2005)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Barton, N. H. & Polechova, J. The limitations of adaptive dynamics as a model of evolution. J. Evol. Biol. 18, 1186–1190 (2005)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dieckmann, U. & Doebeli, M. Pluralism in evolutionary theory. J. Evol. Biol. 18, 1209–1213 (2005)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barton, N. H. & Keightley, P. D. Understanding quantitative genetic variation. Nature Rev. Genet. 3, 11–21 (2002)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Eyre-Walker, A. & Keightley, P. D. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Nature Rev. Genet. 8, 610–618 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Carroll, S. B. Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo (W.W. Norton & Co, New York, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection Ch. 2 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1930)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wolf, M., van Doorn, G., Leimar, O. et al. Wolf et al. reply. Nature 451, E9–E10 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06744

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06744

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation