0000000001099442
AUTHOR
Johan A. J. Metz
The enigma of frequency-dependent selection
Frequency-dependent selection is so fundamental to modern evolutionary thinking that everyone interested in evolutionary biology 'knows' the concept. It is even so fundamental that many authors of textbooks do not bother to define it. Yet it turns out that different authors (and sometimes even one and the same author) use the term to refer to different types of selection. In this paper we try to uncover the sources of this confusion. The concept is fairly well defined in the original concept of population genetical theory, which focuses on short-term evolutionary change, and basically ignores density-dependence. The problems start when the original concept is used in the context of long-ter…
Reply from m. Heino, j.a.j. Metz and v. Kaitala.
Eva Kisdi clarifies the relationships between frequency dependence, optimization and ESSs. We basically agree with all her comments. However, some further clarification may be useful.In the first paragraph of Kisdi's letter, ESSs and optimal strategies are seemingly opposed by saying that `finding an optimal strategy is a considerably stronger result than finding an ESS'. Although this statement is factually correct, it might engender a suggestion that is slightly wrong. Conceptually, ESSs are always primary: only ESSs matter from the viewpoint of long-term evolution. Optimization is secondary only, and must be justified by an ESS argument that explicitly accounts for the ecology in which t…