Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-7sgmh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T05:53:58.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artificial sexual selection alters allometry in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Gerald S. Wilkinson
Gerald S. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
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.

Selection for increased and decreased ratio of eye span to body length was exerted on male stalk-eyed flies (Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni) from Malaysia using replicate selected and unselected lines. Response to selection was symmetrical. After 10 generations high line male eye span increased to 1·3 body lengths while low line male eye span declined to 1·1 body lengths. Realized heritabilities for eye span to body length ratio, estimated using regressions of deviations from unselected controls on cumulative selection differentials, were greater than zero for all four selected lines with average h2 = 0·35 + 0·06. The static linear allometric relationship between eye span and body length diverged between selected lines and rotated among selected line males in the same direction as among males in other sexually dimorphic diopsid species. Crosses between lines after 13 generations of selection indicate that the genes which influence relative eye span combine additively and do not exhibit sex linkage or maternal effects. The genetic correlation between the sexes, 0·29 + 0·05 as estimated by the regression of female on male change in eye span, did not prevent sexual dimorphism in eye span from diverging between lines. These results suggest that the exaggerated eye span of male C. dalmanni is maintained by natural selection opposing sexual selection rather than by lack of or asymmetry in additive genetic variation. Furthermore, the variation in sexual dimorphism for eye span-body length allometry observed among extant diopsid species is consistent with sexual selection of variable intensity acting on relative eye span.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , December 1993 , pp. 213 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

Atkinson, W. D. (1979). A field investigation of larval competition in domestic Drosophila. Journal of Animal Ecology 48, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, T. C. M. (1993). Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363, 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botella, L. M., Moya, A., Gonzalez, M. C. & Mensua, J. L. (1985). Larval stop, delayed development and survival in overcrowded cultures of Drosophila melanogaser: effect of urea and uric acid. Journal of Insect Physiology 31, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, D. & de la Motte, I. (1985). Selective pressures, variability, and sexual dimorphism in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Naturwissenschaften 72, 204–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, D. & de la Motte, I. (1988). Big ‘antlers’ are favoured: female choice in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera, Insecta), field collected harems and laboratory experiments. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 162, 649–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butlin, R. K. & Hewitt, G. M. (1986). Heritability estimates for characters under sexual selection in the grasshopper Chorthippus brunneus. Animal Behaviour 34, 1256–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cade, W. H. (1981). Alternative male strategies: genetic differences in crickets. Science 212, 563–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carson, H. L. & Lande, R. (1984). Inheritance of a secondary sexual character in Drosophila silvestris. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 81, 6904–6907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carson, H. L. & Teramoto, L. T. (1984). Artificial selection for a secondary sexual character in males of Drosophila silvestris from Hawaii. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 81, 3915–3917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlesworth, B. (1984). The cost of phenotypic evolution. Paleobiology 10, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cock, A. G. (1966). Genetical aspects of growth and form in animals. Quarterly Review of Biology 41, 131–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cock, A. G. (1969). Genetical studies on growth and form in the fowl. 2. The complexity of changes in skeletal proportions produced by selection. Genetical Research 14, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de la Motte, I. & Burkhardt, D. (1983). Portrait of an Asian stalk-eyed fly. Naturwissenschaften 70, 451–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1981). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Feijen, H. R. (1989). Diopsidae. In Flies of the Nearctic Region (ed. Griffiths, G. C. D.), pp. 1–122. E. Schweizer-bart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung: Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1958). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Frankham, R. (1990). Are responses to artificial selection for reproductive fitness characters consistently asymmetrical? Genetical Research 56, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J. H. & Turelli, M. (1989). Genotype-environment interactions and the maintenance of polygenic variation. Genetics 121, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedrick, A. V. (1988). Female choice and the heritability of attractive male traits: an empirical study. American Naturalist 132, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W. G. (1971). Design and efficiency of selection experiments for estimating genetic parameters. Biometrics 27, 293–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. (1972a). Estimation of realised heritabilities from selection experiments. I. Divergent selection. Biometrics 29, 747–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W. G. (1972b). Estimation of realised heritabilities from selection experiments. II. Selection in one direction. Biometrics 28, 767–780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houde, A. (1992). Sex-linked heritability of a sexually-selected character in a natural population of guppies, Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poecilidae). Heredity 69, 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingenberg, C. P. & Zimmermann, M. (1992). Static, ontogenetic, and evolutionary allometry: a multivariate comparison in nine species of water striders. American Naturalist 140, 601–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R. (1976). The maintenance of genetic variability by mutation in a polygenic character with linked loci. Genetical Research 26, 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R. (1979). Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain: body size allometry. Evolution 33, 402–416.Google ScholarPubMed
Lande, R. (1980). Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34, 292–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lande, R. (1981). Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 78, 3721–3725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorch, P., Wilkinson, G. S. & Reillo, P. R. (1993). Copulation duration and sperm precedence in the Malaysian stalk-eyed fly, Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Diptera: Diopsidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32, 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. & Brown, R. L. (1986). Competition and body size. Theoretical Population Biology 30, 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLain, D. K. (1987). Heritability of size, a sexually selected character, and the response to sexual selection in a natural population of the southern green stink bug, Nezara viridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Heredity 59, 391–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A. J. (1989). The inheritance of social dominance, mating behavior, and attractiveness to mates in male Nauphoeta cinerea. Animal Behaviour 39, 388–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, L. & Fowler, K. (1993). Responses and correlated responses to artificial selection on thorax length in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 47, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pomiankowski, A., Iwasa, Y. & Nee, S. (1991). The evolution of costly male preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45, 1422–1430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prout, T. & Barker, J. S. F. (1989). Ecological aspects of the heritability of body size in Drosophila buzzatii. Genetics 123, 803–813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riska, B., Prout, T. & Turelli, M. (1989). Laboratory estimates of heritabilities and genetic correlations in nature. Genetics 123, 865–871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, F. W. (1960). The ecological genetics of growth in Drosophila. I. Body size and development time on different diets. Genetical Research 1, 288–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1962). Changing the relative size of the body parts of Drosophila by selection. Genetical Research 3, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shillito, J. F. (1971). Dimorphism in flies with stalked eyes. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society 50, 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, L. W. (1987). Heritability of a male character chosen by females of the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 21, 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, L. W. & Ward, P. I. (1991). The heritability of sexually dimorphic traits in the yellow dung fly Scatophaga stercoraria (L.). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 4, 593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, K. E. (1990). Selection on wing allometry in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 126, 975–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, G. S. (1987). Equilibrium analysis of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 41, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, L. (1989). SYSTAT: The System for Statistics. Evanston: SYSTAT, Inc.Google Scholar