Back

Beta-coalescents when sample size is large

Eldon, B.; Chetwynd-Diggle, J. A.

2026-01-02 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2025.12.30.697022 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Individual recruitment success, or the offspring number distribution of a given population, is a fundamental element in ecology and evolution. Sweepstakes reproduction refers to a highly skewed individual recruitment success without involving natural selection and may apply to individuals in broadcast spawning populations characterised by Type III survivorship. We consider an extension of the Schweinsberg (2003) model of sweepstakes reproduction for a haploid panmictic population of constant size N; the extension also works as an alternative to the Wright-Fisher model. Our model incorporates an upper bound on the random number of potential offspring (juveniles) produced by a given individual. Depending on how the bound behaves relative to the total population size, we obtain the Kingman (1982a,c,b) coalescent, an incomplete Beta-coalescent, or the (complete) Beta-coalescent of Schweinsberg (2003). We argue that applying such an upper bound is biologically reasonable. Moreover, we estimate the error of the coalescent approximation. The error estimates reveal that convergence can be slow, and small sample size can be sufficient to invalidate convergence, for example if the stated bound is of the form N/ log N. We use simulations to investigate the effect of increasing sample size on the site-frequency spectrum. When the limit is a Beta-coalescent, the site frequency spectrum will be as predicted by the limiting tree even though the full coalescent tree may deviate from the limiting one. When in the domain of attraction of the Kingman coalescent the effect of increasing sample size depends on the effective population size as has been noted in the case of the Wright-Fisher model. Conditioning on the population ancestry (the random ancestral relations of the entire population at all times) may have little effect on the site-frequency spectrum for the models considered here (as evidenced by simulation results).

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
18.1%
2
Theoretical Population Biology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.1%
3
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
9.8%
4
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
6
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.7%
7
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
8
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.5%
9
Systematic Biology
121 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
10
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.8%
11
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
12
Journal of Heredity
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
13
Journal of Mathematical Biology
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
14
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
15
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.9%
16
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 42%
0.9%
17
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
18
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
19
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
222 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
20
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
21
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%