Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:34:21.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptation to environmental heterogeneity in populations of Drosophila melanogaster

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Margriet V. Verdonck
Margriet V. Verdonck
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

For 29 generations, populations of Drosophila melanogaster were offered one favourable (standard) and one suboptimal (salt-supplemented) medium, either singly or simultaneously. Egg-to-adult viability, fecundity and choice of oviposition medium were measured at regular intervals on both resources up to 17 generations after initiation of the salt treatment. Except for a decrease in viability on salt medium in the single-resource populations (SRPs) maintained on the optimal medium, these fitness components remained unchanged. Estimation of a more inclusive measure of fitness, productivity, obtained at generations 27–29, revealed that: (1) the SRPs maintained on salt medium were more adapted to salt medium; (2) the mixed-resource populations (MRPs) were intermediate in their adaptation to salt medium between either type of single-resource population. These results support Levins' model of optimal strategy for populations living in a coarse-grained environment when the fitness set is convex. Family selection for increased and decreased resistance to salt in the medium, carried out for the viability component at generations nine and 19, showed that: (1) genetic variation with respect to this component was present in all populations; (2) the SRPs maintained on salt medium had responded to the salt treatment by eliminating sensitive genotypes; (3) in the first selection experiment, the MRPs had a greater amount of additive genetic variance with respect to viability than either type of SRP; in the second experiment, this difference was not significant, but it was in the predicted direction. The latter finding provides some evidence in favour of the hypothesis repeatedly presented in the literature that environmental heterogeneity could promote the maintenance of genetic variability in populations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , February 1987 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

References

Antonovics, J. (1971). The effects of a heterogeneous environment on the genetics of natural populations. American Scientist 59, 593–599.Google ScholarPubMed
Beardmore, J. A. (1961). Diurnal temperature fluctuation and genetic variance in Drosophila populations. Nature 189, 162–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beardmore, J. A. & Levine, L. (1963). Fitness and environmental variation. 1. A study of some polymorphic populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 17, 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, B. (1976). Recombination modification in a fluctuating environment. Genetics 83, 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, B. & Charlesworth, D. (1979). Dominance modification in a fluctuating environment. Genetical Research 34, 281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Cunha, A. B., Burla, H. & Dobzhansky, Th. (1950). Adaptive chromosomal polymorphism in Drosophila willistoni. Evolution 4, 212–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, J. (1959). Etude quantitative du développement de la Drosophile élevée en milieu axénique. Bulletin Biologique de la France et de la Belgique 93, 472–505.Google Scholar
David, J. & Clavel, M. F. (1965). Interaction entre le génotype et le milieu d'élevage. Conséquences sur les caractéristiques du développement de la Drosophile. Bulletin Biologique de la France et de la Belgique 99, 369–378.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. New York: The Ronald Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1958). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Haley, C. S. & Birley, A. J. (1983). The genetical response to natural selection by varied environments. II. Observations on replicate populations in spatially varied laboratory environments. Heredity 51, 581–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedrick, P. W., Ginevan, M. E. & Ewing, E. P. (1976). Genetic polymorphism in heterogeneous environments. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 7, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R. (1980). Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34, 292–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levins, R. (1962). Theory of fitness in a heterogeneous environment. I. The fitness set and adaptive function. American Naturalist 96, 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levins, R. (1963). Theory of fitness in a heterogeneous environment. II. Developmental flexibility and niche selection. American Naturalist 97, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levins, R. (1968). Evolution in Heterogeneous Environments. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1957). The adaptations of populations to varying environments. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium of Quantitative Biology 22, 395–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackay, T. F. C. (1980). Genetic variance, fitness, and homeostasis in varying environments: an experimental check of the theory. Evolution 34, 1219–1222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackay, T. F. C. (1981). Genetic variation in varying environments. Genetical Research 37, 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. (1955). Polymorphism as an outcome of disruptive selection. Evolution 9, 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, J. F. & Ayala, F. J. (1974). Genetic response to environmental heterogeneity. Nature 250, 572–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minawa, A. & Birley, A. J. (1975). Genetical and environmental diversity in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 255, 702–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minawa, A. & Birley, A. J. (1978). The genetical response to natural selection by varied environments. I. Short-term observations. Heredity 40, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyoshi, Y. (1961). On the resistibility of Drosophila to sodium chloride. Strain difference and heritability in D. melanogaster. Genetics 46, 935–945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, J. R. (1971). Genetic polymorphism in varied environments. Science 174, 1035–1036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, J. R. & Taylor, C. E. (1979). Genetic variation in ecologically diverse environments. American Scientist 67, 590–596.Google Scholar
Powell, J. R. & Wistrand, H. (1978). The effect of heterogeneous environments and a competitor on genetic variation in Drosophila. American Naturalist 112, 935–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoday, J. M. & Boam, T. B. (1959). Effects of disruptive selection. II. Polymorphism and divergence without isolation. Heredity 13, 205–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valen, L. (1965). Morphological variation and width of ecological niche. American Naturalist 99, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdonck, M. V. (1978). A study of adaptation in populations of Drosophila melanogaster subjected to various levels of environmental heterogeneity. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1959). Canalization of development and genetic assimilation of acquired characters. Nature 183, 1654–1655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamazaki, T., Kusakabe, S., Tachida, H., Ichinose, M., Yoshimaru, H., Matsuo, Y. & Mukai, T. (1983). Reexamination of diversifying selection of polymorphic allozyme genes by using population cages in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA) 80, 5789–5792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zirkle, D. F. & Riddle, R. A. (1983). Quantitative genetic response to environmental heterogeneity in Tribolium confusum. Evolution 37, 637–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed