, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 63–77

Changes in fecundity of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans in response to selection for competitive ability

  • Ronald B. Aiken
  • David L. Gibo


  1. 1.

    Equal numbers of the sibling species Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans were allowed to compete in population cages. Two sets of 5 cages each-A & B-took 20 and 26 weeks respectively until D. simulans comprised less than 15% of the population for 2 successive generations.

  2. 2.

    At the beginning of each cage set, the fecundity of stock females of each species in the presence of con-& heterospecific females, con- and heterospecific larvae, distilled water and a water soluble extract from larvainfested media were determined. Fecundities of daughters of the last generation to be in competition were tested under the same conditions.

  3. 3.

    In all conditions, D. melanogaster stock females had a higher fecundity than D. simulans females at the beginning of each cage set. After competition, the fecundity of both species changes (generally increased) although that of D. simulans increased to a greater degree.

  4. 4.

    In test of the water-soluble extract of previously used media, females of both species showed decreased fecundity. This indicates that females can determine whether a food source has been used by larvae even when no larvae are immediately observable.



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adolph, E.E.: Egg laying reactions in the Pomace fly, Drosophila. J. exp. Zool. 31, 327–341 (1920)Google Scholar
  2. Alpatov, W.W.: Egg production in Drosophila melanogaster and some factors which influence it. J. exp. Zool. 63, 85–111 (1932)Google Scholar
  3. Andrewartha, H.G., Birch, L.C.: The distribution and abundance of animals. Chicago Univ. Chicago Press (1954)Google Scholar
  4. Ayala, F.: Reversal of dominance in competing species of Drosophila. Amer. Nat. 100, 81–83 (1966)Google Scholar
  5. Ayala, F.: Evolution of fitness. IV. Genetic evolution of interspecific competitive ability in Drosophila. Genetics 61, 737–747 (1969)Google Scholar
  6. Birch, LC: The genetic factor in population ecology. Amer. Nat. 90, 5–24 (1960)Google Scholar
  7. Bryant, E.H., Turner, C.R.: 1972. Rapid evolution of competitive ability in larval mixtures of the housefly. Evolution 26, 161–170Google Scholar
  8. Budnick, M., Brncic, D.: Effect of larval biotic residues on viability in four species of Drosophila. Evolution 29, 777–780 (1975)Google Scholar
  9. Chapco, W.: The inheritance of fertility in Drosophila melanogaster. PhD. Thesis. University of Toronto. 81 pp (1967)Google Scholar
  10. Chiang, H.C., Hodson, A.C.: An analytical study of population growth in Drosophila melanogaster. Ecol. Monogr. 20, 173–206 (1950)Google Scholar
  11. Chitty, D.: Population processes in the vole and their relevance to general theory. Can. J. Zool. 38, 99–113 (1960)Google Scholar
  12. Dawood, M.M., Strickberger, M.W.: The effect of larval interaction on viability in Drosophila melanogaster. III. Effects of biotic residues. Genetics 63, 213–220 (1969)Google Scholar
  13. Dawson, P.S., Lerner, I.M.: Genetic variation and indeterminisms in interspecific competition. Amer. Nat. 96, 379–380 (1962)Google Scholar
  14. Dobzhansky, T.: Fecundity of Drosophila pseudoobscura at different temperatures. J. exp. Zool. 71, 449–464 (1935)Google Scholar
  15. Feinberg, E.H., Pimentel, D.: Evolution of increased “female sex ratio” in the blowfly (Phoenicia sericata) under laboratory competition with the housefly (Musca domestica). Amer. Nat. 100, 235–244 (1966)Google Scholar
  16. Ford, H.D., Ford, E.B.: Fluctuation in numbers and its influence on variation in Melitaea aurinia Rott. (Lepidoptera) Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 78, 345–351 (1930)Google Scholar
  17. Futuyma, D.J.: Variation in genetic response to interspecific competition in laboratory populations of Drosophila. Amer. Nat. 104, 239–252 (1970)Google Scholar
  18. Gause, G.F.: The struggle for existence. Williams and Wilkins. Baltimore (1934)Google Scholar
  19. Gibo, D.L.: Interspecific competition at low population densities. Ph.D Thesis. Riverside, California Univ. of California (1969)Google Scholar
  20. Gibo, D.L.: A stabilizing interaction between the founder effect and interdeme mixing in competing population of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. Can. J. Zool. 50, 325–331 (1972)Google Scholar
  21. Guyenot, E.: Études biologiques sur une mouche Drosophila ampelophila Löw. V. Nutrition des adultes et fécondité. C.R. Soc. Biol. Paris 74, 332–334 (1913)Google Scholar
  22. Haldane, J.B.S.: The relation between density regulation and natural selection. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. (B) 145, 306–308 (1956)Google Scholar
  23. Hanson, F.B., Ferris, F.R.: A quantitative study of fecundity in Drosophila melanogaster. J. exp. Zool. 54, 485–506 (1929)Google Scholar
  24. Hedrick, P.H.: Factors responsible for a change in competitive ability in Drosophila. Evolution 26, 513–522 (1973)Google Scholar
  25. Kaliss, N., Graubard, M.A.: The effect of temperature on oviposition in Drosophila melanogaster. Biol. Bull. 70, 385–391 (1936)Google Scholar
  26. Kinross, J., Robertson, A.: Egg laying and survival rates in population cages of Drosophila melanogaster. Dros. Inf. Serv 45, 83 (1970)Google Scholar
  27. Lerner, I.M., Ho, F.K.: Genotype and competitive ability in Tribolium. Amer. Nat. 95, 329–343 (1961)Google Scholar
  28. Levin, D.R.: Genetic ability and competitive performance in species of Drosophila. Genetics 61 (suppl. 2), 36–37 (1969)Google Scholar
  29. Lotka, A.J.: The growth of mixed populations: two species competing for a common food supply. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 22, 461–469 (1932)Google Scholar
  30. Mickey, G.W., Carpenter, J., Crimley, R.W., Burdotte, W.: Experiments on culture media in regard to oviposition and mass production of Drosophila melanogaster. J.N.Y. ent. Soc. 49, 77–84 (1944)Google Scholar
  31. Miller, R.S.: Larval competition in Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. Ecology 45, 132–148 (1964)Google Scholar
  32. Moore, J.M.: Competition between Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans. II. The improvement of competitive ability through selection. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (U.S.A.) 38, 813–817 (1952)Google Scholar
  33. Moree, R.: Data on relative fecundity involving the mutant “ebony” of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 47, 972 (1962)Google Scholar
  34. Moth, J.J., Barker, J.S.F.: Interspecific competition between Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans. Oecologica (Berl.) 23, 151–164 (1976)Google Scholar
  35. Park, T.: Studies in population physiology. VI. The effect of differentially conditioned flour upon the fecundity and fertility of Tribolium confusum Duval. J. exp. Zool. 73, 393–604 (1936)Google Scholar
  36. Park, T.: Experimental studies of insect populations. Amer. Nat. 71, 21–33 (1937)Google Scholar
  37. Park, T., Gregg, E.V., Lutherman, C.Z.: Studies in population physiology. X. Interspecific competition in population of granary beetles. Physiol. Zool. 14, 395–430 (1941)Google Scholar
  38. Park, T., Leslie, P.H., Mertz, D.B.: Genetic strains and competition in populations of Tribolium. Physiol. Zool. 37, 97–162 (1964)Google Scholar
  39. Parsons, P.A.: The comparative evolutionary biology of the sibling species, Drosophia melanogaster and D. simulans. Quart. Rev. Biol. 50, 151–169 (1975)Google Scholar
  40. Pearl, R.: The influence of density of population upon the egg production in D. melanogaster. J. exp. Zool. 63, 57–84 (1932)Google Scholar
  41. Pimentel, D.: Population ecology and the genetic feedback mechanism. Proc. XI Int. Congr. Gen. 483–488 (1961)Google Scholar
  42. Pimentel, D., Feinberg, E.H., Wood, P.W., Haynes, J.T.: Selection, spatial distribution and the coexistence of competing fly species. Amer. Nat. 99, 97–109 (1965)Google Scholar
  43. Robertson, F.W., Sang, J.H.: The ecological determinants of population growth in a Drosophila culture. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond (B) 132, 258–291 (1944)Google Scholar
  44. Sang, J.H.: The ecological determinants of population growth in a Drosophila culture. III. Larval and pupal survival Physiol. Zoo. 22, 183–202 (1949)Google Scholar
  45. Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.: Biometry. W. Freeman and Co. San Francisco (1969)Google Scholar
  46. Ullyett, G.C.: Competition for food and allied phenomena in sheep-blowfly populations. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. (B) 234, 77–174 (1950)Google Scholar
  47. Veillet, A. 1936. Influence de l'acide acetique sur la ponte de la Drosophila (Drosophila melanogaster Meig.). Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 61, 39–48Google Scholar
  48. Warren, D.C.: Inheritance of egg size in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 9, 41–69 (1924)Google Scholar
  49. Wellington, W.: Individual differences as a factor in population dybamics: the development of the problem. Can. J. Zool. 35, 293–323 (1957)Google Scholar
  50. Winsor, C.P.: Controlling factors in Drosophila population growth. Quart. Rev. Biol. 12, 348–351 (1937)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald B. Aiken
    • 1
  • David L. Gibo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Erindale CollegeUniversity of TorontoMississaugaCanada

Personalised recommendations