Open Access

Selection by differential mortality rates

M. S. Cecconello

M. S. Cecconello

Departamento de Ciêcias Exatas e da Terra, Universidade Federal de Mato GrossoBRAZIL
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Cecconello, M. S.
, 
R. A. de Assis

R. A. de Assis

Faculdade de Ciências Exatas e Tecnológicas, Universidade do Estado de Mato GrossoBRAZIL
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
de Assis, R. A.
, 
L. M. E. de Assis

L. M. E. de Assis

Dipartimento di Matematica ‘Giuseppe Peano’, Università di TorinoITALY
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
de Assis, L. M. E.
 and 
E. Venturino

E. Venturino

Dipartimento di Matematica ‘Giuseppe Peano’, Università di TorinoITALY
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Venturino, E.
  
May 26, 2021
Selection by differential mortality rates's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Download Cover
Published Online: May 26, 2021
Page range: 2049 - 2062
Received: Jun 24, 2020
Accepted: Feb 26, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns.2021.2.00018
Keywords
© 2021 M. S. Cecconello et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1

Schematic representation of a mortality function for directional selection.
Schematic representation of a mortality function for directional selection.

Fig. 2

Non-zero equilibrium solutions of Eq. (2) with Neumann (left) and Dirichlet (right) boundary conditions, respectively. For this simulation we consider μ(x) = 0.15(5 − x). These simulations show the typical behaviour of evolution by directional selection.
Non-zero equilibrium solutions of Eq. (2) with Neumann (left) and Dirichlet (right) boundary conditions, respectively. For this simulation we consider μ(x) = 0.15(5 − x). These simulations show the typical behaviour of evolution by directional selection.

Fig. 3

Schematic representation of a mortality function for disruptive selection.
Schematic representation of a mortality function for disruptive selection.

Fig. 4

Numerical simulations of nonzero equilibrium solutions for Eq. (2) with Neumann (left) and Dirichlet (right) boundary conditions, respectively. Here we consider μ(x) = max{0,0.192(6.25 − x2)}. These simulations show the typical behaviour of evolution by disruptive selection.
Numerical simulations of nonzero equilibrium solutions for Eq. (2) with Neumann (left) and Dirichlet (right) boundary conditions, respectively. Here we consider μ(x) = max{0,0.192(6.25 − x2)}. These simulations show the typical behaviour of evolution by disruptive selection.

Fig. 5

Schematic representation of a mortality function for stabilising selection.
Schematic representation of a mortality function for stabilising selection.

Fig. 6

Numerical simulations of nonzero equilibrium solutions for Eq. (2) with Neumann (left) and Dirichlet (right) boundary conditions, respectively. For these simulations we consider μ(x) = min{0.184x2,1.15}. These simulations show the typical evolution behaviour by stabilising selection.
Numerical simulations of nonzero equilibrium solutions for Eq. (2) with Neumann (left) and Dirichlet (right) boundary conditions, respectively. For these simulations we consider μ(x) = min{0.184x2,1.15}. These simulations show the typical evolution behaviour by stabilising selection.

Fig. 7

Numerical simulation showing the transition from the fittest to the flattest as the mutation rate increases. Left: the function μ(x); right: the soultion for small V. Here, the horizontal line is y = 1.
Numerical simulation showing the transition from the fittest to the flattest as the mutation rate increases. Left: the function μ(x); right: the soultion for small V. Here, the horizontal line is y = 1.

Fig. 8

Numerical simulation showing the transition from the fittest to the flattest as mutation rate increases. Left V = 0.4; right V = 0.52.
Numerical simulation showing the transition from the fittest to the flattest as mutation rate increases. Left V = 0.4; right V = 0.52.

Fig. 9

Numerical simulation showing the transition from the fittest to the flattest as the mutation rate increases. Left V = 0.54; right V = 0.7.
Numerical simulation showing the transition from the fittest to the flattest as the mutation rate increases. Left V = 0.54; right V = 0.7.
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
1 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Life Sciences, Life Sciences, other, Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, General Mathematics, Physics, Physics, other
Journal RSS Feed