title: The population growth consequences of variation in individual heterozygosity.
abstract: Heterozygosity has been associated with components of fitness in numerous studies across a wide range of taxa. Because heterozygosity is associated with individual performance it is also expected to be associated with population dynamics. However, investigations into the association between heterozygosity and population dynamics have been rare because of difficulties in linking evolutionary and ecological processes. The choice of heterozygosity measure is a further issue confounding such studies as it can be biased by individual differences in the frequencies of the alleles studied, the number of alleles at each locus as well as the total number of loci typed. In this study, we first examine the differences between the principal metrics used to calculate heterozygosity using long-term data from a marked population of Soay sheep (Ovis aries). Next, by means of statistical transformation of the homozygosity weighted by loci index, we determine how heterozygosity contributes to population growth in Soay sheep by modelling individual contributions to population growth (p(t(i))) as a function of several covariates, including sex, weight and faecal egg count--a surrogate of parasitic nematode burden in the gut. We demonstrate that although heterozygosity is associated with some components of fitness, most notably adult male reproductive success, in general it is only weakly associated with population growth.
authors: Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot, Berkshire, United Kingdom. martina.di-fonzo06@imperial.ac.uk
authors: Martina M I
authors: MM
authors: Di Fonzo
authors: Fanie
authors: F
authors: Pelletier
authors: T H
authors: TH
authors: Clutton-Brock
authors: Josephine M
authors: JM
authors: Pemberton
authors: Tim
authors: T
authors: Coulson
references: Evolution. 1989 Mar;43(2):258-275
references: 28568555
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Jun 22;268(1473):1287-91
references: 11410156
references: Science. 2007 Mar 16;315(5818):1571-4
references: 17363672
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Jan 7;270(1510):91-7
references: 12590776
references: Science. 2001 May 25;292(5521):1528-31
references: 11375487
references: Evolution. 1999 Aug;53(4):1259-1267
references: 28565537
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jun 22;273(1593):1491-9
references: 16777743
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Oct 7;268(1480):2021-7
references: 11571049
references: Evolution. 2009 Feb;63(2):403-17
references: 19154375
references: Mol Ecol. 2006 Dec;15(14):4659-65
references: 17107491
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Aug 22;267(1453):1657-62
references: 11467429
references: Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Mar 22;265(1395):489-95
references: 9569667
references: Mol Ecol. 2005 Oct;14(11):3383-93
references: 16156810
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Sep 7;271(1550):1823-9
references: 15315898
references: PLoS Biol. 2006 May;4(5):e129
references: 16620151
references: Mol Ecol. 2009 Jul;18(13):2746-65
references: 19500255
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Mar 7;273(1586):547-55
references: 16537125
references: PLoS One. 2006 Dec 20;1:e72
references: 17183704
references: Nature. 2003 Mar 6;422(6927):35
references: 12621424
references: Mol Ecol. 2009 Apr;18(7):1491-503
references: 19298267
references: Parasitology. 2001 May;122(Pt 5):571-82
references: 11393831
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1995 Feb 28;347(1321):263-73
references: 7777592
references: Nature. 1992 Feb 27;355(6363):823-6
references: 1538761
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1996 Jun 29;351(1341):745-52
references: 8693018
references: Evolution. 1985 Mar;39(2):308-314
references: 28564223
references: Proc Biol Sci. 1998 May 7;265(1398):803-9
references: 9628038
references: Mol Ecol. 1998 May;7(5):639-55
references: 9633105