| Literature DB >> 22066017 |
Ellyn Valery Bitume1, Dries Bonte, Sara Magalhães, Gilles San Martin, Stefan Van Dongen, Fabien Bach, Justin Michael Anderson, Isabelle Olivieri, Caroline Marie Nieberding.
Abstract
Dispersal distance is understudied although the evolution of dispersal distance affects the distribution of genetic diversity through space. Using the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae, we tested the conditions under which dispersal distance could evolve. To this aim, we performed artificial selection based on dispersal distance by choosing 40 individuals (out of 150) that settled furthest from the home patch (high dispersal, HDIS) and 40 individuals that remained close to the home patch (low dispersal, LDIS) with three replicates per treatment. We did not observe a response to selection nor a difference between treatments in life-history traits (fecundity, survival, longevity, and sex-ratio) after ten generations of selection. However, we show that heritability for dispersal distance depends on density. Heritability for dispersal distance was low and non-significant when using the same density as the artificial selection experiments while heritability becomes significant at a lower density. Furthermore, we show that maternal effects may have influenced the dispersal behaviour of the mites. Our results suggest primarily that selection did not work because high density and maternal effects induced phenotypic plasticity for dispersal distance. Density and maternal effects may affect the evolution of dispersal distance and should be incorporated into future theoretical and empirical studies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22066017 PMCID: PMC3204979 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026927
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Review of articles that report a response to artificial selection based on a dispersal trait with accompanying heritability values, when available.
| Organism | Dispersal trait selected |
| Reference |
|
| flight propensity | wing dimorphism 0.65 (Roff 1986b). | Fairbairn & Roff (1990) |
|
| emigration | Ogden (1970) | |
|
| flight propensity | Diez & Lopez-Fanjul (1978) | |
|
| emigration | Korona (1991) | |
|
| emigration | Lomnicki (2006) | |
|
| flight duration | 0.56 parent-offspring regression; 0.53 using breeders equation | Gu & Danthanarayana (1992) |
|
| mobility | 0.29 for females and 0.43 for males | Keil |
|
| emigration | 0.28 | Li & Margolies (1994) |
|
| emigration | Yano & Takafuji (2002) |
Figure 1Artificial selection set-up.
Schematic representing the artificial selection procedure. 150 mated young females were placed on patch one (a). The females dispersed through the linear system for 48 hours (b), at which time 40 females were removed from patches five and six for the HDIS treatment, from patches two and three for the LDIS treatment, and randomly from all patches for the Control treatment. Mites are represented by black circles.
Figure 2Effect of artificial selection on the proportion of females found on patch one and two.
Proportion of females found on patch one and two after 48 hours by generation and by treatment: (a) LDIS (b) HDIS.
Results of mixed models for dispersal distance over ten successive generations (fixed effects and variance components).
|
| |||||||
| num df | den df | F | P-value | varcomp | mean |
| |
| Treatment | 2 | 6.22 | 1.23 | 0.35 | σ2 line | 0.052 | 0.041 |
| Generation | 1 | 6.1 | 0.33 | 0.58 | σ2 lineXgeneration | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Treatment × Generation | 2 | 6.1 | 0.44 | 0.62 | σ2 residual | 3.061 |
Num df and den df represent the numerator and denominator degrees of freedom. Mean is the mean variance explained by the random effect, and se represents the standard error of the variance.
Figure 3Correlation between generations.
Autocorrelation between generations of the proportion of individuals found on patches one and two for all pooled replicates and treatments. Dotted lines represent the confidence intervals at 0.95. Lag time indicates the generation time passed between comparisons.
Figure 4Mother-daughter regression of dispersal distance.
(a) High density (150 mites) and (b) low density (10 mites).