Animal model residual value

Mon, May 8, 2017 8:25 AM #

Hi everyone,

I have a question on a certain assumption made regarding the 'animal' 
model when implemented in a quantitative genetic study for a trait. 
While reading van Benthem et al. (2016), the author mentions that the 
residual (environmental) value, in the additive partitioning assumed by 
the model, captures plasticity. Does this assumption always hold? or 
only in the case where we model the maternal, permanent environment and 
common environment?

My question is for the purpose of estimating the plasticity of a fixed 
heritable life-history trait (occurs only once during individual 
lifetime). Since there are no explicit methods to estimate individual 
plasticity in a non-labile trait, I am attempting to see if I can 
circumvent this by using the 'animal' model based on the assumption 
mentioned above.

Thank you

Walid Mawass
Maitrise en Biologie Cellulaire et Mol?culaire
Laboratoire de G?n?tique des Populations
D?partement de Chimie, Biochimie et Physique
Universit? du Quebec ? Trois-Rivi?res
3351, Boul. des Forges, C.P.500
Tel. (819)-376-5011 poste 3384

Pierre de Villemereuil

Mon, May 8, 2017 2:45 PM #

Hi,

It depends on what you call "plasticity". Most often, plasticity is defined as the part of phenotypic variability that varies according to environment. Without an experimental settings or environmental replications, it's very hard to distinguish from random phenotypic variability.

I've heard people considering that the environmental variance is a measure of plasticity, but it seems to me that this is a huge assumption that random variability is negligible, especially if you have only 1 environment.

Cheers,
Pierre.

On Monday, 8 May 2017 11:25:59 NZST Walid wrote: