title: Frequency dependence 3.0: an attempt at codifying the evolutionary ecology perspective.
abstract: The fitness concept and perforce the definition of frequency independent fitnesses from population genetics is closely tied to discrete time population models with non-overlapping generations. Evolutionary ecologists generally focus on trait evolution through repeated mutant substitutions in populations with complicated life histories. This goes with using the per capita invasion speed of mutants as their fitness. In this paper we develop a concept of frequency independence that attempts to capture the practical use of the term by ecologists, which although inspired by population genetics rarely fits its strict definition. We propose to call the invasion fitnesses of an eco-evolutionary model frequency independent when the phenotypes can be ranked by competitive strength, measured by who can invade whom. This is equivalent to the absence of weak priority effects, protected dimorphisms and rock-scissor-paper configurations. Our concept differs from that of Heino et al. (TREE 13:367-370, 1998) in that it is based only on the signs of the invasion fitnesses, whereas Heino et al. based their definitions on the structure of the feedback environment, summarising the effect of all direct and indirect interactions between individuals on fitness. As it turns out, according to our new definition an eco-evolutionary model has frequency independent fitnesses if and only if the effect of the feedback environment on the fitness signs can be summarised by a single scalar with monotonic effect. This may be compared with Heino et al.'s concept of trivial frequency dependence defined by the environmental feedback influencing fitness, and not just its sign, in a scalar manner, without any monotonicity restriction. As it turns out, absence of the latter restriction leaves room for rock-scissor-paper configurations. Since in 'realistic' (as opposed to toy) models frequency independence is exceedingly rare, we also define a concept of weak frequency dependence, which can be interpreted intuitively as almost frequency independence, and analyse in which sense and to what extent the restrictions on the potential model outcomes of the frequency independent case stay intact for models with weak frequency dependence.
authors.affiliation: Mathematical Institute and Institute of Biology, Leiden University, 2333 CA, Leiden, The Netherlands. j.a.j.metz@biology.leidenuniv.nl.|Evolution and Ecology Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2361, Laxenburg, Austria. j.a.j.metz@biology.leidenuniv.nl.|Naturalis Biodiversity Center, 2333 CR, Leiden, The Netherlands. j.a.j.metz@biology.leidenuniv.nl.
authors.forename: Johan A J
authors.initials: JAJ
authors.lastname: Metz
authors.affiliation: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki, PO Box 68, 00014, Helsinki, Finland.
authors.forename: Stefan A H
authors.initials: SAH
authors.lastname: Geritz
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D017753:Ecosystem; D004777:Environment; D019143:Evolution, Molecular; D056084:Genetic Fitness; D005828:Genetics, Population; D006801:Humans; D055641:Mathematical Concepts; D008957:Models, Genetic; D009154:Mutation; D010641:Phenotype
keywords: Adaptive dynamics; ESS theory; Feedback environment; Frequency dependence; Frequency independence; Invasion fitness; Meso-evolutionary statics; Optimisation principle; Pessimisation principle; Weak frequency dependence
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2003 Sep;47(3):222-34
references.pmid: 12955457
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2013 Dec;67(6-7):1729-39
references.pmid: 23090671
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2003 Sep;47(3):235-48
references.pmid: 12955458
references.citation: J Math Biol. 1990;28(4):365-82
references.pmid: 2117040
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2013 Mar;66(4-5):635-47
references.pmid: 23108731
references.citation: J Biol Dyn. 2011 Mar;5(2):163-90
references.pmid: 22873438
references.citation: Theor Popul Biol. 2003 Jun;63(4):309-38
references.pmid: 12742176
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2008 May;56(5):673-742
references.pmid: 17943289
references.citation: J Math Biol. 1996;34(5-6):579-612
references.pmid: 8691086
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2012 Oct;65(4):601-21
references.pmid: 21987087
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2011 May;62(5):655-83
references.pmid: 20532555
references.citation: Interface Focus. 2013 Dec 6;3(6):20130025
references.pmid: 24516713
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2013 Jan;66(1-2):225-79
references.pmid: 22311195
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Mar 7;268(1466):499-508
references.pmid: 11296862
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 1997 Apr 7;185(3):333-43
references.pmid: 9156083
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2005 Jan;50(1):67-82
references.pmid: 15692841
references.citation: Genetics. 1958 May;43(3):419-34
references.pmid: 17247767
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2001 Dec;43(6):545-60
references.pmid: 11822546
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2011 Mar;62(3):359-69
references.pmid: 20364380
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2013 Sep;67(3):569-607
references.pmid: 22821207
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1992 Jun;7(6):198-202
references.pmid: 21236007
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2009 Jun;58(6):881-921
references.pmid: 18668245
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 1998 Sep 1;13(9):367-70
references.pmid: 21238345
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2014 Nov;69(5):1267-317
references.pmid: 24311028
references.citation: Theor Popul Biol. 2008 Jun;73(4):517-28
references.pmid: 18384827
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2006 Sep;53(3):421-36
references.pmid: 16823580
references.citation: J Math Biol. 2012 Aug;65(2):309-48
references.pmid: 21842424
references.citation: Phys Rev Lett. 2005 Aug 12;95(7):078105
references.pmid: 16196829
references.citation: Theor Popul Biol. 1999 Jun;55(3):324-43
references.pmid: 10366556
references.citation: Theor Popul Biol. 2006 Feb;69(1):68-87
references.pmid: 16243372