Literature DB >> 12041830

The consistency of quantitative genetic estimates in field and laboratory in the yellow dung fly.

Wolf U Blanckenhorn1.   

Abstract

How consistent quantitative genetic estimates are across environments is unclear and under discussion. Heritability (h2) estimates of hind tibia length (body size), development time and diapause induction in the yellow dung fly, Scathophaga stercoraria, generated with various methods in various environments are reported and compared. Estimates varied considerably within and among studies, but yielded good overall averages. The genetic correlations between the sexes for body size and development time were expectedly high (r(sex) = 0.57-0.78) but clearly less than unity, implying independent evolution of both traits in males and females of this sexually dimorphic species. Genetic and environmental variance components increased in proportion at variable field relative to constant laboratory conditions, resulting in overall similar h(2). Heritabilities for males and females were also similar, and h(2) of the morphological trait hind tibia length was not necessarily greater than that of the two life history traits. Full-sib (broad-sense) estimates (h(2) = 0.7-1.1) were 2-3 times greater than half-sib and parent/offspring (narrow-sense) estimates (h2 = 0-0.6). Common environment (i.e., among-container) variance averaged 38.3% (body size) and 16.8% (development time) of the broad-sense genetic variance in two laboratory studies. The broad-sense h(2), therefore, may contain substantial amounts (12-50%) of dominance variance and/or variance due to maternal effects. A general conclusion emerging from this and similar studies appears to be that whether field and laboratory genetic estimates differ depends on the environment, trait and species under consideration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12041830     DOI: 10.1023/a:1015181516827

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetica        ISSN: 0016-6707            Impact factor:   1.082


  8 in total

1.  Superior sperm competitors sire higher-quality young.

Authors:  D J Hosken; T W J Garner; T Tregenza; N Wedell; P I Ward
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2003-09-22       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Realized heritability and repeatability of risk-taking behaviour in relation to avian personalities.

Authors:  Kees van Oers; Piet J Drent; Piet de Goede; Arie J van Noordwijk
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-01-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 3.  Environmental quality and evolutionary potential: lessons from wild populations.

Authors:  Anne Charmantier; Dany Garant
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-07-22       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Development times under long- and short-day conditions in the Kanzawa spider mite Tetranychus kanzawai (Acari: Tetranychidae).

Authors:  Katsura Ito
Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.132

5.  Ecological selection as the cause and sexual differentiation as the consequence of species divergence?

Authors:  Elen Oneal; L Lacey Knowles
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 6.  A review of the natural history and laboratory culture methods for the yellow dung fly, Scathophaga stercoraria.

Authors:  W U Blanckenhorn; A J Pemberton; L F Bussière; J Roembke; K D Floate
Journal:  J Insect Sci       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.857

7.  First Insights into the Intrapuparial Development of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel): Application in Predicting Emergence Time for Tephritid Fly Control.

Authors:  Tian-Xing Jing; Ying-Xin Zhang; Wei Dou; Xin-Yi Jiang; Jin-Jun Wang
Journal:  Insects       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 2.769

8.  Resource quality affects weapon and testis size and the ability of these traits to respond to selection in the leaf-footed cactus bug, Narnia femorata.

Authors:  Daniel A Sasson; Patricio R Munoz; Salvador A Gezan; Christine W Miller
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 2.912

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.