Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T12:50:43.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temperature related fertility selection on body size and the sex-ratio gene arrangement in Drosophila pseudoobscura

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

M. D. Gebhardt  and
W. W. Anderson
M. D. Gebhardt*
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
W. W. Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
*
† Corresponding author.

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We measured temperature-dependent fertility selection on body size in Drosophila pseudoobscura in the laboratory. One hundred single females of each of the three karyotypes involving the ‘sexratio’ (SR) and the standard (ST) gene arrangement on the sex chromosome laid eggs at either 18 or 24°C. The experiment addressed the following hypotheses: (a) Fertility selection on body size is weaker at the higher temperature, explaining in part why genetically smaller flies appear to evolve in populations at warmer localities, (b) Homokaryotypic SR females are less fecund than homokaryotypic ST females, possibly mediated by the effect of body size on fertility, explaining the low frequencies of SR despite its strong advantage due to meiotic drive. The data were also expected to shed light on a mechanism for the evolution of plasticity of body size through fertility selection in environments with an unpredictable temperature regime. Hypothesis (a) was clearly refuted because phenotypically larger ST females had an even larger fertility surplus at the higher temperature and, more importantly, the genetic correlation between fertility and body size disappeared at the lower temperature. As to (b), we found that temperature affects fertility directly and indirectly through body size such that ST and SR females were about equally fecund at both temperatures, although different in size and size-adjusted fertility. We observed heterosis for both size and fertility, which might stabilize the polymorphism in nature. The reaction norms of body size to the temperature difference were steeper for ST females than for SR females, implying that fertility selection could change phenotypic plasticity of body size in a population. Selection on body size depended not only on the temperature, but also on the karyotypes, suggesting that models of phenotype evolution using purely phenotypic fitness functions may often be inadequate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , August 1993 , pp. 63 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

Anderson, W. W. (1966). Genetic divergence in M. Vetukhiv's experimental populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. 3. Divergence in body size. Genetical Research 7, 255–266.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. W. (1973). Genetic divergence in body size among experimental populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura kept at different temperatures. Evolution 27, 278–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckenbach, A. (1983). Fitness analysis of the ‘sex-ratio’ polymorphism in experimental populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. American Naturalist 121, 630–648.Google Scholar
Cavicchi, S., Guerra, D., Giorgi, G. & Pezzoli, C., (1985 Temperature-relate divergence in experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster. I. Genetic and Cellularity basis of wing size and shape variation. Genetics 109, 665–689).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavicchi, S., Guerra, D., Natali, V. & Pezzoli, C. (1989). Temperature-related divergence in experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster. II. Correlation between fitness and body dimensions. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2, 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtsinger, J. W. & Feldman, M. W. (1980). Experimental and theoretical analysis of the ‘sex-ratio’ polymorphism in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 94, 445–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebhardt, M. D. & Stearns, S. C. (1988). Reaction norms for Cellularity time and weight at eclosion in Drosophila mercatorum. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 1, 335–354.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. P. & Lewontin, R. C. (1982). A study of reaction norms in natural populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 36, 934–948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jong, G. (1989). Phenotypically plastic characters in isolated populations. In Evolutionary Biology of Transient Unstable Populations (ed. Fontdevila, A.), pp. 3–18. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, G. (1990). Quantitative genetics of reaction norms. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 3, 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R. & Arnold, S. J. (1983). The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37, 1210–1226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayr, E. (1963). Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misra, R. K. & Reeve, E. C. R. (1964). Clines in body dimensions in populations of Drosophila subobscura. Genetical Research 5, 240–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Policansky, D. & Ellison, J. (1970). Sex-ratio in Drosophila pseudoobscura: spermiogenic failure. Science 169, 888–889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, J. R. (1974). Temperature related genetic divergence in Drosophila body size. Journal of Heredity 65, 257–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prevosti, A. (1955). Geographical variability in quantitative traits in populations of Drosophila subobscura. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 20, 294–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roff, D. A. (1981). On being the right size. American Naturalist 118, 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (1990). SAS User's Guide: Statistics, version 6.04 edition. Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Nielson, K. (1984). Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important? Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokoloff, A. (1965). Geographic variation of quantitative characters in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 19, 300–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalker, H. & Carson, H. (1947). Morphological variation in natural populations of Drosophila robusta Sturtevant. Evolution 1, 237–248.Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C. & Koella, J. C. (1986). The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in life-history traits: predictions of reaction norms for age and size at maturity. Evolution 40, 893–913.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, A. H. & Dobzhansky, Th. (1936). Geographical distribution and cytology of ‘sex-ratio’ in Drosophila pseudoobscura and related species. Genetics 21, 473–490.Google Scholar
Tantawy, A. O. & Vetukhiv, M. O. (1960). Effects of size on fecundity, longevity and viability in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. American Naturalist 94, 395–403.Google Scholar
Via, S. & Lande, R. (1985). Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39, 505–522.Google Scholar
Wallace, B. (1948). Studies on ‘sex-ratio’ in Drosophila pseudoobscura. I. Selection and ‘sex-ratio’. Evolution 2, 189–217.Google Scholar