The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Environmental quality and evolutionary potential: lessons from wild populations
Open accessAbstract
An essential requirement to determine a population's potential for evolutionary change is to quantify the amount of genetic variability expressed for traits under selection. Early investigations in laboratory conditions showed that the magnitude of the genetic and environmental components of phenotypic variation can change with environmental conditions. However, there is no consensus as to how the expression of genetic variation is sensitive to different environmental conditions. Recently, the study of quantitative genetics in the wild has been revitalized by new pedigree analyses based on restricted maximum likelihood, resulting in a number of studies investigating these questions in wild populations. Experimental manipulation of environmental quality in the wild, as well as the use of naturally occurring favourable or stressful environments, has broadened the treatment of different taxa and traits. Here, we conduct a meta-analysis on recent studies comparing heritability in favourable versus unfavourable conditions in non-domestic and non-laboratory animals. The results provide evidence for increased heritability in more favourable conditions, significantly so for morphometric traits but not for traits more closely related to fitness. We discuss how these results are explained by underlying changes in variance components, and how they represent a major step in our understanding of evolutionary processes in wild populations. We also show how these trends contrast with the prevailing view resulting mainly from laboratory experiments on Drosophila. Finally, we underline the importance of taking into account the environmental variation in models predicting quantitative trait evolution.
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 measurement of selection on correlated characters
Lande, R., & Arnold, S. J. (1983) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1983.tb00236.x · Cited by 5,437
QUANTITATIVE GENETIC ANALYSIS OF MULTIVARIATE EVOLUTION, APPLIED TO BRAIN:BODY SIZE ALLOMETRY
Lande, R. (1979) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1979.tb04694.x · Cited by 2,648
Cited by
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
Climate change and evolution: disentangling environmental and genetic responses
GIENAPP, P., TEPLITSKY, C., ALHO, J. S., MILLS, J. A., & MERILÄ, J. (2008) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03413.x · Cited by 1,256
Gluckman, P. D., Hanson, M. A., & Beedle, A. S. (2007) · American Journal of Human Biology · doi:10.1002/ajhb.20590 · Cited by 1,006
Egg size and offspring quality: a meta‐analysis in birds
Krist, M. (2011) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00166.x · Cited by 472
Bailey, D. H., Walker, R. S., Blomquist, G. E., Hill, K. R., Hurtado, A. M., & Geary, D. C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059325 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Charmantier, A., & Garant, D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2005-06-28
- Volume
- 272
- Issue
- 1571
- Pages
- 1415-1425
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- OpenAlex
- W2101006440
- Cited by
- 524
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Environmental quality and evolutionary potential: lessons from wild populations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2005.3117
- The paper
- Charmantier, A., & Garant, D. (2005). Environmental quality and evolutionary potential: lessons from wild populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3117
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.