Literature DB >> 28307873

The colonization of organges by the cosmopolitan Drosophila.

Leonard Nunney1.   

Abstract

The guild of "cosmopolitan" Drosophila coexist almost worldwide and yet the mechanisms that underlie this coexistence are unknown. The larval resource of the guild is decaying fruit and vegetables, but the species show little specialization and can coexist on a single resource, such as oranges. In southern California the guild includes D. simulans (SIM), D. melanogaster (MEL), D. pseudoobscura (OBS), D. immigrans (IMM), D. hydei (HYD) and D. busckii (BUS). These species show consistent differences in their colonization of decaying organges, differences that may promote their coexistence. This study tested whether the colonization pattern of a species is determined primarily by attraction to specific resource types (decayed or fresh organges), by ability to colonize new resource patches, or by dependence on a successional sequence of Drosophila species. The experiments compared oranges that were pre-aged prior to a colonization period and showed that the colonization pattern of each species (except OBS) was driven primarily by its decay-dependent attraction to oranges. While OBS exhibited a pattern of colonization independent of pre-aging, the remaining species all showed some preference for older (7-day pre-aged) over fresh oranges. Their overall pattern of attraction, ordered by high relative abundance on fresher organges, was SIM>MEL=IMM>HYD=BUS. BUS, a specialist on decaying plant material, was the only species that showed a preference for 11-day over 7-day oranges. Pre-aging the oranges under covers, to prevent prior colonization by Drosophila, did not change the interspecific pattern of colonization, indicating that microbial decay was driving the changes in attraction. The patterns of attraction separated two ecologically similar pairs (SIM from MEL; IMM from HYD) and published data on ethanol tolerance show that, in each pair, the earliest colonizer has the lower tolerance. This suggests an important interplay between colonization patterns and physiological optima.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colonization; Drosophila; Ecology; Guild; Succession

Year:  1996        PMID: 28307873     DOI: 10.1007/BF00333733

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  8 in total

1.  THE DROSOPHILIDAE ASSOCIATED WITH TROPICAL AFRICAN FIGS.

Authors:  Daniel Lachaise; Leonidas Tsacas; Guy Couturier
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  Niche separation of African Lissocephala within the Ficus Drosophilid community.

Authors:  D Lachaise
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  THE BIOGEOGRAPHY OF LABORATORY ISLANDS.

Authors:  Bruce Wallace
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1975-12       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  Genetic variation at the alcohol dehydrogenase locus in Drosophila melanogaster in relation to environmental variation: Ethanol levels in breeding sites and allozyme frequencies.

Authors:  J B Gibson; T W May; A V Wilks
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1981-01       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  A comparative study of resource utilization in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans.

Authors:  J A McKenzie; S W McKechnie
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1979-01       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Alcohol tolerance: An ecological parameter in the relative success of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans.

Authors:  J A McKenzie; P A Parsons
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1972-12       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Breeding site specificity in the domestic species of Drosophila.

Authors:  W Atkinson; B Shorrocks
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1977-09       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  ALCOHOL TOLERANCE, ADH ACTIVITY, AND ECOLOGICAL NICHE OF DROSOPHILA SPECIES.

Authors:  Herve Merçot; Danielle Defaye; Pierre Capy; Eliane Pla; Jean R David
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 3.694

  8 in total
  10 in total

1.  Monitoring food preference in Drosophila by oligonucleotide tagging.

Authors:  Annie Park; Tracy Tran; Nigel S Atkinson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-08-20       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Genetics and genomics of alcohol responses in Drosophila.

Authors:  Annie Park; Alfredo Ghezzi; Thilini P Wijesekera; Nigel S Atkinson
Journal:  Neuropharmacology       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 5.250

3.  Prior mating experience modulates the dispersal of Drosophila in males more than in females.

Authors:  Jasper C Simon; William B Dickson; Michael H Dickinson
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  2011-05-27       Impact factor: 2.805

4.  Habitat Predicts Levels of Genetic Admixture in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  Viranga Tilakaratna; Douda Bensasson
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2017-09-07       Impact factor: 3.154

5.  Differential attraction of drosophilids to banana baits inoculated with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Hanseniaspora uvarum within a Neotropical forest remnant.

Authors:  Marcos R D Batista; Fabiana Uno; Rafael D Chaves; Rosana Tidon; Carlos A Rosa; Louis B Klaczko
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Spotted Wing Drosophila in Sweet Cherry Orchards in Relation to Forest Characteristics, Bycatch, and Resource Availability.

Authors:  Ernest Ireneusz Hennig; Dominique Mazzi
Journal:  Insects       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 2.769

7.  High frequency of horizontal transfer in Jockey families (LINE order) of drosophilids.

Authors:  Izabella L Tambones; Annabelle Haudry; Maryanna C Simão; Claudia M A Carareto
Journal:  Mob DNA       Date:  2019-11-04

Review 8.  Alcohol-induced Aggression.

Authors:  Nigel S Atkinson
Journal:  Neurosci Insights       Date:  2021-11-22

9.  Host species and environmental effects on bacterial communities associated with Drosophila in the laboratory and in the natural environment.

Authors:  Fabian Staubach; John F Baines; Sven Künzel; Elisabeth M Bik; Dmitri A Petrov
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Differential side-effects of Bacillus thuringiensis bioinsecticide on non-target Drosophila flies.

Authors:  Aurélie Babin; Marie-Paule Nawrot-Esposito; Armel Gallet; Jean-Luc Gatti; Marylène Poirié
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.