Back to chapter

31.2:

Types of Selection

JoVE Core
Biology
A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content.  Sign in or start your free trial.
JoVE Core Biology
Types of Selection

Languages

Share

Natural selection influences the frequencies of particular alleles and phenotypes within populations in several ways primarily by directional, stabilizing and disruptive selection.

In directional selection, one extreme phenotype is selected for while the other is selected against.

For example, a species of lizard becomes established on an island without competitors or predators. Females can be selective on bright, colorful and fit males, a process known as sexual selection. As females mate with brighter, colorful males, the frequency of that phenotype increases.

However, a predator then arrives and bright colorful males become easy prey. Since dull males still do not mate at a high frequency and bright males are eaten by predators, the intermediate phenotype increases in frequency. This process is known as stabilizing selection.

The last type of selection, disruptive selection, occurs when both extreme phenotypes are selected for and the intermediate is selected against.

Again, lizards arrive on an island without predators and brighter males are selected for by females due to their higher fitness. However, dull males which appear very similar to females, are able to sneak matings. This action will increase the frequency of both dull and bright males while intermediates decrease.

31.2:

Types of Selection

Natural selection influences the frequencies of particular alleles and phenotypes within populations in several different ways. Primarily, natural selection can be directional, stabilizing, or disruptive. Directional selection favors one extreme trait and shifts the population towards that phenotype while selecting against individuals displaying alternate traits. Stabilizing selection favors an intermediate trait with a narrow range of variation. Deviation from the optimal phenotype towards an extreme one is unfavorable. Finally, disruptive selection favors both extremes of a phenotype, while intermediate phenotypes are selected against.

Directional Selection

Directional selection favors one extreme of a phenotype. For example, in sockeye salmon, research has shown that directional selection is favoring seasonally earlier migration. This is thought to be due to predation pressure from fisheries, as fishing increases later in the migration season. Thus, fish arriving and spawning earlier may have a better chance of reaching their destination to reproduce before being caught by fishermen.

Stabilizing Selection

When a particular non-extreme phenotype is favored, this is referred to as stabilizing selection. For example, across many species of birds, clutch size (the number of eggs in a single brood) is kept within an optimal window. Lapwings and golden plovers typically lay four eggs. This optimization is a trade-off between keeping the clutch size low enough to ensure enough resources to feed all the chicks and having enough chicks to ensure that at least some survive to adulthood. This is a common theme among bird species.

Disruptive Selection

In some scenarios, two extremes of a trait may be more favorable in the environment than an intermediate trait. The African black-bellied seedcracker (Pyrenestes ostrinus) displays an impressive polymorphism for beak size that is not determined by sex, body size, age or geographic origin. Two major distinct morphs exist, small-billed and large-billed. This trait is controlled by a single autosomal locus, with large bills being dominant. These two distinct bill morphologies allow the seedcrackers to easily eat the seeds of different sedge grasses. The small-billed seedcrackers primarily eat sedge species with softer seeds, whereas the large-billed birds can crack the harder seeds of other species of sedge. However, birds with bills of intermediate sizes cannot easily eat either type and are thus rarely seen.

Suggested Reading

Martin, Ryan A, and David W Pfennig. “Widespread Disruptive Selection in the Wild Is Associated with Intense Resource Competition.” BMC Evolutionary Biology 12 (August 2, 2012): 136. [Source]

Podos, Jeffrey, and Stephen Nowicki. “Beaks, Adaptation, and Vocal Evolution in Darwin’s Finches.” BioScience 54, no. 6 (June 1, 2004): 501–10. [Source]