The Division of Labor: Genotypic versus Phenotypic Specialization
A model of the division of labor in simple evolving systems is explored to compare two strategies evident in natural populations: phenotypic specialization (such as differentiation by regulated gene expression) and genotypic specialization (such as co‐infection by complementary covirus populations)....
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The American naturalist 2002-07, Vol.160 (1), p.135-145 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 145 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 135 |
| container_title | The American naturalist |
| container_volume | 160 |
| creator | Wahl, L. M. |
| description | A model of the division of labor in simple evolving systems is explored to compare two strategies evident in natural populations: phenotypic specialization (such as differentiation by regulated gene expression) and genotypic specialization (such as co‐infection by complementary covirus populations). While genotypic specialization is vulnerable to the chance extinction of an essential specialist type and to parasitism, phenotypic specialization is able to overcome these hurdles. When simple spatial effects are included, phenotypic specialization has further benefits, protecting against destructive dynamic patterns. Many of the advantages of phenotypic specialization, however, can only be realized when a high degree of relatedness within groups is ensured. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1086/340601 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_18707504</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>10.1086/340601</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>10.1086/340601</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-c8e61b1c942ba3f21fa36104d3388067df18c8b925d16d0afabd5281795298d63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkVtLw0AQhRdRtN5-gUgQ8S26k737VuoVCgrW57DZbOyWtht3k4L-eiMpVXzxaZjhm3OYMwgdA74ELPkVoZhj2EIDYESkjGRkGw0wxiTFQMUe2o9x1rWKKraL9kAKLBimAzScTG1y41YuOr9MfJWMdeHDdXJvl775qJ1JVjbENibP083kpbbG6bn71E23dIh2Kj2P9mhdD9Dr3e1k9JCOn-4fR8NxaogkTWqk5VCAUTQrNKkyqDThgGlJiJSYi7ICaWShMlYCL7GudFGyTIJQLFOy5OQAXfS6dfDvrY1NvnDR2PlcL61vYy4yRSnO6L8gSMooSNaBZ3_AmW_DsjsiByW5AC5_2ZrgYwy2yuvgFjp85IDz7-jzPvoOPF2rtcXClj_YOusOOO-B1kyd0W--DjbGH8-NzkmPzWLjw0aGYKG6d5IvBdSRUA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>198671686</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Division of Labor: Genotypic versus Phenotypic Specialization</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Wahl, L. M.</creator><contributor>Michael P. Mesterton‐Gibbons ; Michael P. Mesterton-Gibbons</contributor><creatorcontrib>Wahl, L. M. ; Michael P. Mesterton‐Gibbons ; Michael P. Mesterton-Gibbons</creatorcontrib><description>A model of the division of labor in simple evolving systems is explored to compare two strategies evident in natural populations: phenotypic specialization (such as differentiation by regulated gene expression) and genotypic specialization (such as co‐infection by complementary covirus populations). While genotypic specialization is vulnerable to the chance extinction of an essential specialist type and to parasitism, phenotypic specialization is able to overcome these hurdles. When simple spatial effects are included, phenotypic specialization has further benefits, protecting against destructive dynamic patterns. Many of the advantages of phenotypic specialization, however, can only be realized when a high degree of relatedness within groups is ensured.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-0147</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-5323</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1086/340601</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18707504</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AMNTA4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: The University of Chicago Press</publisher><subject>Division of labor ; Ecological competition ; Evolution ; Fungi ; Genetic equilibrium ; Genotypes ; Parasites ; Parasitism ; Phenotypes ; Population distributions ; Population growth</subject><ispartof>The American naturalist, 2002-07, Vol.160 (1), p.135-145</ispartof><rights>2002 by The University of Chicago.</rights><rights>Copyright University of Chicago, acting through its Press Jul 2002</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-c8e61b1c942ba3f21fa36104d3388067df18c8b925d16d0afabd5281795298d63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-c8e61b1c942ba3f21fa36104d3388067df18c8b925d16d0afabd5281795298d63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,800,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18707504$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Michael P. Mesterton‐Gibbons</contributor><contributor>Michael P. Mesterton-Gibbons</contributor><creatorcontrib>Wahl, L. M.</creatorcontrib><title>The Division of Labor: Genotypic versus Phenotypic Specialization</title><title>The American naturalist</title><addtitle>Am Nat</addtitle><description>A model of the division of labor in simple evolving systems is explored to compare two strategies evident in natural populations: phenotypic specialization (such as differentiation by regulated gene expression) and genotypic specialization (such as co‐infection by complementary covirus populations). While genotypic specialization is vulnerable to the chance extinction of an essential specialist type and to parasitism, phenotypic specialization is able to overcome these hurdles. When simple spatial effects are included, phenotypic specialization has further benefits, protecting against destructive dynamic patterns. Many of the advantages of phenotypic specialization, however, can only be realized when a high degree of relatedness within groups is ensured.</description><subject>Division of labor</subject><subject>Ecological competition</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Fungi</subject><subject>Genetic equilibrium</subject><subject>Genotypes</subject><subject>Parasites</subject><subject>Parasitism</subject><subject>Phenotypes</subject><subject>Population distributions</subject><subject>Population growth</subject><issn>0003-0147</issn><issn>1537-5323</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkVtLw0AQhRdRtN5-gUgQ8S26k737VuoVCgrW57DZbOyWtht3k4L-eiMpVXzxaZjhm3OYMwgdA74ELPkVoZhj2EIDYESkjGRkGw0wxiTFQMUe2o9x1rWKKraL9kAKLBimAzScTG1y41YuOr9MfJWMdeHDdXJvl775qJ1JVjbENibP083kpbbG6bn71E23dIh2Kj2P9mhdD9Dr3e1k9JCOn-4fR8NxaogkTWqk5VCAUTQrNKkyqDThgGlJiJSYi7ICaWShMlYCL7GudFGyTIJQLFOy5OQAXfS6dfDvrY1NvnDR2PlcL61vYy4yRSnO6L8gSMooSNaBZ3_AmW_DsjsiByW5AC5_2ZrgYwy2yuvgFjp85IDz7-jzPvoOPF2rtcXClj_YOusOOO-B1kyd0W--DjbGH8-NzkmPzWLjw0aGYKG6d5IvBdSRUA</recordid><startdate>20020701</startdate><enddate>20020701</enddate><creator>Wahl, L. M.</creator><general>The University of Chicago Press</general><general>University of Chicago, acting through its Press</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020701</creationdate><title>The Division of Labor: Genotypic versus Phenotypic Specialization</title><author>Wahl, L. M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c383t-c8e61b1c942ba3f21fa36104d3388067df18c8b925d16d0afabd5281795298d63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Division of labor</topic><topic>Ecological competition</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Fungi</topic><topic>Genetic equilibrium</topic><topic>Genotypes</topic><topic>Parasites</topic><topic>Parasitism</topic><topic>Phenotypes</topic><topic>Population distributions</topic><topic>Population growth</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wahl, L. M.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American naturalist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wahl, L. M.</au><au>Michael P. Mesterton‐Gibbons</au><au>Michael P. Mesterton-Gibbons</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Division of Labor: Genotypic versus Phenotypic Specialization</atitle><jtitle>The American naturalist</jtitle><addtitle>Am Nat</addtitle><date>2002-07-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>160</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>135</spage><epage>145</epage><pages>135-145</pages><issn>0003-0147</issn><eissn>1537-5323</eissn><coden>AMNTA4</coden><abstract>A model of the division of labor in simple evolving systems is explored to compare two strategies evident in natural populations: phenotypic specialization (such as differentiation by regulated gene expression) and genotypic specialization (such as co‐infection by complementary covirus populations). While genotypic specialization is vulnerable to the chance extinction of an essential specialist type and to parasitism, phenotypic specialization is able to overcome these hurdles. When simple spatial effects are included, phenotypic specialization has further benefits, protecting against destructive dynamic patterns. Many of the advantages of phenotypic specialization, however, can only be realized when a high degree of relatedness within groups is ensured.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>The University of Chicago Press</pub><pmid>18707504</pmid><doi>10.1086/340601</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0003-0147 |
| ispartof | The American naturalist, 2002-07, Vol.160 (1), p.135-145 |
| issn | 0003-0147 1537-5323 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmed_primary_18707504 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
| subjects | Division of labor Ecological competition Evolution Fungi Genetic equilibrium Genotypes Parasites Parasitism Phenotypes Population distributions Population growth |
| title | The Division of Labor: Genotypic versus Phenotypic Specialization |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T13%3A55%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Division%20of%20Labor:%20Genotypic%20versus%20Phenotypic%20Specialization&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20naturalist&rft.au=Wahl,%20L.%20M.&rft.date=2002-07-01&rft.volume=160&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=135&rft.epage=145&rft.pages=135-145&rft.issn=0003-0147&rft.eissn=1537-5323&rft.coden=AMNTA4&rft_id=info:doi/10.1086/340601&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E10.1086/340601%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=198671686&rft_id=info:pmid/18707504&rft_jstor_id=10.1086/340601&rfr_iscdi=true |