Advertisement

Behavior Genetics

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 433–441 | Cite as

Genetics of a nonoptimal behavior: Oviposition preference ofDrosophila mauritiana for a toxic resource

  • B. Moreteau
  • S. R'Kha
  • J. R. David
Article

Abstract

Among three sibling species of theD. melanogaster subgroup, two are generalists (D. simulans andD. mauritiana), while the third,D. sechellia, specializes on a single toxic resource, the fruit ofMorinda citrifolia. D. sechellia, resistant to the toxics, prefers to oviposit on morinda;D. simulans, which is very sensitive, is strongly repelled.D. mauritiana exhibits an aberrant behavior since it prefers to lay its eggs on morinda, where its embryos are killed. Oviposition behavior, studied in parental species, F1 hybrids, and backcrosses, was mostly an additive genetical trait. Further investigations were made withD. mauritiana andD. simulans carrying recessive markers. The X and second chromosomes had no effect, while a clear effect was found for chromosome 3. Since the toxicity of morinda is due to middle-length fatty acids, the behavior of the three species toward various acids was investigated. We found thatD. sechellia exhibited a general oviposition preference for acids, whileD. simulans was repelled by acids with at least four carbons. SurprisinglyD. mauritiana exhibited behavior quite similar to that ofD. simulans. Preference for morinda inD. sechellia andD. mauritiana could be mediated by different chemicals.

Key Words

Oviposition behavior ecological specialization Drosophila sechellia Morinda citrifolia aliphatic acids 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bush, G. L., and Howard, D. J. (1986). Allopatric and nonallopatric speciation: Assumptions and evidence. In Karlin, S., and Nevo, E. (eds.),Evolutionary Processes and Theories, Academic Press, Orlando, FL pp. 411–438.Google Scholar
  2. Connell J. H. (1980). Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past.Oikos 35:131–138.Google Scholar
  3. Coyne, J. A., and Kreitman, M. (1986). Evolutionary genetics of two sibling species,Drosophila simulans andD. sechellia.Evolution 40:673–691.Google Scholar
  4. Coyne, J. A., Rux, J., and David, J. R. (1991). Genetics of morphological differences and hybrid sterility betweenD. sechellia and its relatives.Genet. Res. Cambr. 57:113–122.Google Scholar
  5. David, J. R., and Clavel, M. F. (1965). Interaction entre le génotype et le milieu d'élevage. Conséquences sur les caractéristiques du développement de la drosophile.Bull. Biol. Fr. Belg. 99:369–378.Google Scholar
  6. David, J. R., and Van Herrewege, J. (1970). Choix d'un site de ponte chezDrosophila melanogaster: technique d'étude et variabilité.Rev. Comp. Anim. 4:82–84.Google Scholar
  7. David, J. R., McEvey, S.F., Solignac, M., and Tsacas, L. (1989).Drosophila communities on Mauritius and the ecological niche ofD. mauritiana (Diptera, Drosophilidae).J. Afr. Zool.,103:107–116.Google Scholar
  8. Dichl, S. R., and Bush, G. L. (1989). The role of habitat preference in adaptation and speciation. In Otte, D., and Endler, J. A. (eds.)Speciation and Its Consequences, Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, pp. 345–365.Google Scholar
  9. Feder, J. L., Chicote, C. A., and Bush, G. L. (1990a). The geographic differentiation between host associated populations ofRhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the eastern United States and Canada.Evolution 44:570–594.Google Scholar
  10. Feder, J. L., Chicote, C. A., and Bush, G. L. (1990b) Regional, local and micro geographical allele frequency variation between apple and hawthorn populations ofRhagoletis pomonella in western Michigan.Evolution 44:595–608.Google Scholar
  11. Harborne, J. B. (1989).Introduction to Ecological Biochemistry, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  12. Heed, W. B., and Mangan, R. L. (1986). Community ecology of the Sonoran desertDrosophila. In Ashburner, M., Carson, H., and Thompson, J. N., Jr. (eds.),The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, Academic Press, London, Vol. 3e, pp. 311–341.Google Scholar
  13. Higa, I., and Fuyama, Y. (1993). Genetics of food preference inDrosophila sechellia. I. Responses to food attractants.Genetica 88:129–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hutchinson, G. E. (1978).An Introduction to Population Ecology, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, and London.Google Scholar
  15. Lachaise, D., David, J. R., Lemeunier, F., Tsacas, L., and Ashburner, M. (1986). The reproductive relationships ofDrosophila sechellia withD. mauritiana, D. simulans andD. melanogaster from the Afrotropical region.Evolution 40: 262–271.Google Scholar
  16. Lachaise, D., Cariou, M. L., David, J. R., Lemeunier, F., Tsacas, L., and Ashburner, M. (1988). Historical biogeography of theDrosophila melanogaster species subgroup.Evolut. Biol. 22:159–225.Google Scholar
  17. Legal, L., David, J. R., and Jallon, J. M. (1992). Toxicity and attraction effects produced byMorinda citrifolia on theDrosophila melanogaster complex of species.Chemoecology: 125–129.Google Scholar
  18. Legal, L., Chappe, B., and Jallon, J. M. (1994). Molecular basis ofMorinda citrifolia (L.) toxicity onDrosophila J. Chem. Ecol. 20:1931–1943.Google Scholar
  19. Lemeunier, F., David, J. R., Tsacas, L., and Ashburner, M. (1986). The melanogaster species group In Ashburner, M., Carson, H., and Thompson, J. N. Jr. (eds.),The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, Academic Press, London, Vol. 3e, pp. 147–256.Google Scholar
  20. Louis, J., and David J. R. (1986). Ecological specialization in theDrosophila melanogaster species subgroup: A case ofD. sechellia.Acta Oecol. Oecol. Gener. 7:215–219.Google Scholar
  21. Maynard Smith, J. (1966). Sympatric speciation.Am. Nat.,100: 637–651.Google Scholar
  22. Price, P. W. (1984).Insect Ecology, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  23. R'Kha, S., Capy, P., and David, J. R. (1991). Host-plant specialization in theDrosophila melanogaster species complex: A physiological, behavioral, and genetical analysis.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88:1835–1839.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosewell, J., Shorrocks, B., and Edwards, K. (1990). Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource: Testing the assumptions. I. Aggregation.J. Anim. Ecol. 59:977–1001.Google Scholar
  25. Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. F. (1981).Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological research, Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  26. Tauber, C. A., and Tauber, M. J. (1989). Sympatric speciation in insects: Perception and perspective. In Otte, D., and Endler, J. A. (eds.),Speciation and Its Consequences, Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, pp. 307–344.Google Scholar
  27. Tilman, D. (1982).Resource Competition and Community Structure, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  28. Tsacas, L., and Bächli, G. (1981).Drosophila sechellia, n. sp., Huitième espèce du sous groupemelanogaster des îles Seychelles (Diptera, Drosophilidae).Rev. Fr. Entomol. (NS) 3:146–150.Google Scholar
  29. Vouidibio, J., Capy, P., Defaye, D., Pla, E., Sandrin, J., Csink, A., and David, J. R. (1989). Short-range genetic structure ofDrosophila melanogaster populations in an Afrotropical urban area and its significance.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86:8442–8446.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Moreteau
    • 1
  • S. R'Kha
    • 1
  • J. R. David
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Biologie et Génétique évolutivesCNRSGif sur Yvette CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations