The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits.
Open accessAbstract
There are two distinct reasons for making comparisons of genetic variation for quantitative characters. The first is to compare evolvabilities, or ability to respond to selection, and the second is to make inferences about the forces that maintain genetic variability. Measures of variation that are standardized by the trait mean, such as the additive genetic coefficient of variation, are appropriate for both purposes. Variation has usually been compared as narrow sense heritabilities, but this is almost always an inappropriate comparative measure of evolvability and variability. Coefficients of variation were calculated from 842 estimates of trait means, variances and heritabilities in the literature. Traits closely related to fitness have higher additive genetic and nongenetic variability by the coefficient of variation criterion than characters under weak selection. This is the reverse of the accepted conclusion based on comparisons of heritability. The low heritability of fitness components is best explained by their high residual variation. The high additive genetic and residual variability of fitness traits might be explained by the great number of genetic and environmental events they are affected by, or by a lack of stabilizing selection to reduce their phenotypic variance. Over one-third of the quantitative genetics papers reviewed did not report trait means or variances. Researchers should always report these statistics, so that measures of variation appropriate to a variety of situations may be calculated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The genetical theory of natural selection
Fisher, R. A. (1930) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.27468 · Cited by 17,617
EVOLUTIONARY QUANTITATIVE GENETICS: HOW LITTLE DO WE KNOW?
Barton, N. H., & Turelli, M. (1989) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ge.23.120189.002005 · Cited by 686
Cited by
Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution
Réale, D., Reader, S. M., Sol, D., McDougall, P. T., & Dingemanse, N. J. (2007) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2007.00010.x · Cited by 3,132
Heritability in the genomics era — concepts and misconceptions
Visscher, P. M., Hill, W. G., & Wray, N. R. (2008) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2322 · Cited by 1,921
Drake, J. W., Charlesworth, B., Charlesworth, D., & Crow, J. F. (1998) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/148.4.1667 · Cited by 1,932
Ecological consequences of genetic diversity
Hughes, A. R., Inouye, B. D., Johnson, M. T. J., Underwood, N., & Vellend, M. (2008) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01179.x · Cited by 1,834
Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation
Hansen, T. F. (1997) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb01457.x · Cited by 1,361
Metadata
- Authors
- Houle, D.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1992-01-01
- Volume
- 130
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 195-204
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W2117851139
- Cited by
- 1,977
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 29.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/130.1.195
- The paper
- Houle, D. (1992). Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/130.1.195
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.