Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Alternative Adaptive Peaks

  • Jeremy DavisEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2746-1

Synonyms

Definition

A set of two or more phenotypic states that result in higher fitness than other states. This is in contrast to situations in which there is a single optimal phenotype, with all variation surrounding that optimum being maladaptive.

Introduction

Sewall Wright introduced the concept of the fitness landscape to visualize the relationship between an organism’s genotype or phenotype and its Darwinian fitness (Wright 1932). In most such visualizations, fitness is represented on a vertical Z-axis, such that the highest points on the landscape produce “adaptive peaks” centered over phenotypic combinations (on the X and Y axes) that have the highest fitness (Fig. 1). Adaptive processes, specifically natural selection or learning, are expected to move the phenotypes of populations or individuals from lower points on the landscape towards the adaptive peaks. In some cases, there will be more than one peak on an...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arnold, S. J., Pfrender, M. E., & Jones, A. G. (2001). The adaptive landscape as a conceptual bridge between micro- and macroevolution. Genetica, 112–113, 9–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Austad, S. N. (1993). Retarded senescence in an insular population of Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana). Journal of Zoology, 229, 695–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnard, C. J., & Sibly, R. M. (1981). Producers and scroungers: A general model and its application to captive flocks of house sparrows. Animal Behaviour, 29, 543–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gangstad, S. W. (2011). Evolutionary processes explaining the genetic variance in personality: An exploration of scenarios. In D. M. Buss & P. H. Hawley (Eds.), The evolution of personality and individual differences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Kaplan, J. (2008). The end of the adaptive landscape metaphor? Biology and Philosophy, 23, 625–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lewontin, R. (1978). Adaptation. Scientific American, 239, 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The evolution of sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523–541.Google Scholar
  9. Nettle, D. (2011). Evolutionary perspectives on the five-factor model of personality. In D. M. Buss & P. H. Hawley (Eds.), The evolution of personality and individual differences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Sulloway, F. (2011). Why siblings are like Darwin's finches: Birth order, sibling competition, and adaptive divergence within the family. In D. M. Buss & P. H. Hawley (Eds.), The evolution of personality and individual differences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Svanback, R. and Bolnick, D. I. (2007). Intraspecific competition drives increased resource use diversity within a natural population. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 274, 839–844.Google Scholar
  12. Wright S. (1932). The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. In: Proceedings of the sixth international congress of genetics, Ithaca, Vol. 1, pp. 356–366.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Washington TacomaTacomaUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Russell Jackson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of IdahoMoscowUSA