Literature DB >> 28565346

DENSITY-DEPENDENT NATURAL SELECTION IN DROSOPHILA: EVOLUTION OF GROWTH RATE AND BODY SIZE.

Mauro Santos1, Daniel J Borash2, Amitabh Joshi, Nira Bounlutay2, Laurence D Mueller2.   

Abstract

Drosophila melanogaster populations subjected to extreme larval crowding (CU lines) in our laboratory have evolved higher larval feeding rates than their corresponding controls (UU lines). It has been suggested that this genetically based behavior may involve an energetic cost, which precludes natural selection in a density-regulated population to simultaneously maximize food acquisition and food conversion into biomass. If true, this stands against some basic predictions of the general theory of density-dependent natural selection. Here we investigate the evolutionary consequences of density-dependent natural selection on growth rate and body size in D. melanogaster. The CU populations showed a higher growth rate during the postcritical period of larval life than UU populations, but the sustained differences in weight did not translate into the adult stage. The simplest explanation for these findings (that natural selection in a crowded larval environment favors a faster food acquisition for the individual to attain the same final body size in a shorter period of time) was tested and rejected by looking at the larva-to-adult development times. Larvae of CU populations starved for different periods of time develop into comparatively smaller adults, suggesting that food seeking behavior in a food depleted environment carries a higher cost to these larvae than to their UU counterparts. The results have important implications for understanding the evolution of body size in natural populations of Drosophila, and stand against some widespread beliefs that body size may represent a compromise between the conflicting effects of genetic variation in larval and adult performance. © 1997 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Body size; Drosophila melanogaster; critical size; density-dependent selection; development time; efficiency; feeding rate; growth rate; trade-offs

Year:  1997        PMID: 28565346     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb02429.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  16 in total

1.  K-selection, alpha-selection, effectiveness, and tolerance in competition: density-dependent selection revisited.

Authors:  A Joshi; N G Prasad; M Shakarad
Journal:  J Genet       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.166

2.  A model of the evolution of larval feeding rate in Drosophila driven by conflicting energy demands.

Authors:  Laurence D Mueller; Thomas T Barter
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 1.082

3.  Latitudinal clines in Drosophila melanogaster: body size, allozyme frequencies, inversion frequencies, and the insulin-signalling pathway.

Authors:  Gerdien De Jong; Zoltán Bochdanovits
Journal:  J Genet       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 1.166

Review 4.  What have two decades of laboratory life-history evolution studies on Drosophila melanogaster taught us?

Authors:  N G Prasad; Amitabh Joshi
Journal:  J Genet       Date:  2003 Apr-Aug       Impact factor: 1.166

5.  Developmental stage and level of codon usage bias in Drosophila.

Authors:  Saverio Vicario; Christopher E Mason; Kevin P White; Jeffrey R Powell
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2008-08-28       Impact factor: 16.240

6.  Ecological adaptation drives wood frog population divergence in life history traits.

Authors:  Emily H Le Sage; Sarah I Duncan; Travis Seaborn; Jennifer Cundiff; Leslie J Rissler; Erica J Crespi
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 3.821

7.  Virus infection suppresses Nicotiana benthamiana adaptive phenotypic plasticity.

Authors:  Stéphanie Bedhomme; Santiago F Elena
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Natural selection on body size is mediated by multiple interacting factors: a comparison of beetle populations varying naturally and experimentally in body size.

Authors:  Angela R Amarillo-Suárez; R Craig Stillwell; Charles W Fox
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.912

9.  Adaptation to abundant low quality food improves the ability to compete for limited rich food in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Roshan K Vijendravarma; Sunitha Narasimha; Tadeusz J Kawecki
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The effects of adaptation to urea on feeding rates and growth in Drosophila larvae.

Authors:  Kathreen Bitner; Grant A Rutledge; James N Kezos; Laurence D Mueller
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.