, Volume 114, Issue 2, pp 171–182 | Cite as

The Consistency of Quantitative Genetic Estimates in Field and Laboratory in the Yellow Dung Fly

  • Wolf U. Blanckenhorn


How consistent quantitative genetic estimates are across environments is unclear and under discussion. Heritability (h2) estimates of hind tibia length (body size), development time and diapause induction in the yellow dung fly, Scathophaga stercoraria, generated with various methods in various environments are reported and compared. Estimates varied considerably within and among studies, but yielded good overall averages. The genetic correlations between the sexes for body size and development time were expectedly high (r(sex) = 0.57–0.78) but clearly less than unity, implying independent evolution of both traits in males and females of this sexually dimorphic species. Genetic and environmental variance components increased in proportion at variable field relative to constant laboratory conditions, resulting in overall similar h2. Heritabilities for males and females were also similar, and h2 of the morphological trait hind tibia length was not necessarily greater than that of the two life history traits. Full-sib (broad-sense) estimates (h2 = 0.7–1.1) were 2–3 times greater than half-sib and parent/offspring (narrow-sense) estimates (h2 = 0–0.6). Common environment (i.e., among-container) variance averaged 38.3% (body size) and 16.8% (development time) of the broad-sense genetic variance in two laboratory studies. The broad-sense h2, therefore, may contain substantial amounts (12–50%) of dominance variance and/or variance due to maternal effects. A general conclusion emerging from this and similar studies appears to be that whether field and laboratory genetic estimates differ depends on the environment, trait and species under consideration.

Body size Development time Diapause Environmental stress Genetic correlation Heritability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amano, K., 1983. Studies on the intraspecific competition in dungbreeding flies. I. Effects of larval density on yellow dung fly, Scathophaga stercoraria L. (Diptera: Scathophagidae). Jap. J. Sanit. Zool. 34: 165–175.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, S.J. & M.J. Wade, 1984. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory and applications. Evolution 38: 709–734.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, W.A., 1992. Manual of Quantitative Genetics. Students Book Corporation, Pullman, WA, 5th edn.Google Scholar
  4. Blanckenhorn, W.U., 1997a. Effects of temperature on growth, development and diapause in the yellow dung fly - against all the rules? Oecologia 111: 318–324.Google Scholar
  5. Blanckenhorn, W.U., 1997b. Altitudinal life history variation in the dung flies Scathophaga stercoraria and Sepsis cynipsea. Oecologia 109: 342–352.Google Scholar
  6. Blanckenhorn, W.U., 1998a. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in growth rate and diapause in the yellow dung fly. Evolution 52: 1397–1407.Google Scholar
  7. Blanckenhorn, W.U., 1998b. Altitudinal differentiation in the diapause response of two species of dung flies. Ecol. Entomol. 23: 1–8.Google Scholar
  8. Bubliy, O.A. & V. Loeschcke, 2000. High stressful temperature and genetic variation of five quantitative traits in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetica 110: 79–85.Google Scholar
  9. Crnokrak, P. & D.A. Roff, 1995. Dominance variance: associations with selection and fitness. Heredity 75: 530–540.Google Scholar
  10. Falconer, D.S., 1989. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow, 3rd edn.Google Scholar
  11. Foster, W., 1967 Hormone-mediated nutritional control of sexual behavior in male dung flies. Science 158: 1596–1597.Google Scholar
  12. Fox, C.W. & T.A. Mousseau, 1998. Maternal effects as adaptations for transgenerational phenotypic plasticity in insects, pp. 159–177 in Maternal Effects as Adaptations, edited by T.A. Mousseau & C.W. Fox. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fry, J.D., 1992. The mixed-model analysis of variance applied to quantitative genetics: biological meaning of the parameters. Evolution 46: 540–550.Google Scholar
  14. Gibbons, D.S., 1980. Prey consumption, mating and egg production in Scathophaga species (Dipt., Scathophagidae) in the laboratory. Entomol. Month. Mag. 116: 25–32.Google Scholar
  15. Hoffmann, A.A., 1999. Laboratory and field heritabilities: some lessons from Drosophila, pp. 200–218 in Adaptive Genetic Variation in the Wild, edited by T.A. Mousseau, B. Sinervo & J.A. Endler. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hoffmann, A.A. & P.A. Parsons, 1991. Evolutionary Genetics and Environmental Stress. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hoffmann, A.A. & J. Merilä, 1999. Heritable variation and evolution under favourable and unfavourable conditions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 96–101.Google Scholar
  18. Jann, P., W.U. Blanckenhorn, & P.I. Ward, 2000. Temporal and microspatial variation in the intensities of natural and sexual selection in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria. J. Evol. Biol. 13: 927–938.Google Scholar
  19. Jann, P. & P.I. Ward, 1999. Maternal effects and their consequences for offspring fitness in the yellow dung fly. Funct. Ecol. 13: 51–58.Google Scholar
  20. Lande, R., 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in phylogenetic characters. Evolution 34: 292–307.Google Scholar
  21. Lande, R. & S.J. Arnold, 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210–1226.Google Scholar
  22. Lynch, M. & B. Walsh, 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.Google Scholar
  23. Mousseau, T.A. & D.A. Roff, 1987. Natural selection and the heritability of fitness components. Heredity 59: 181–198.Google Scholar
  24. Mühlhäuser, C., W.U. Blanckenhorn & P.I. Ward, 1996. The genetic component of copula duration in the yellow dung fly. Anim. Behav. 51: 1401–1407.Google Scholar
  25. Parker, G.A., 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary effect on copulation duration in the fly Scathophaga stercoraria. J. Insect Physiol. 16: 1301–1328.Google Scholar
  26. Parker, G.A., 1978. Searching for mates, pp. 214–244 in Behavioural Ecology, edited by J.R. Krebs & N.B. Davies. Blackwell, Oxford, 1st edn.Google Scholar
  27. Reeve, J.P. & D.J. Fairbairn, 1996. Sexual size dimorphism as a correlated response to selection on body size: an empirical test of the quantitative genetic model. Evolution 50: 1927–1938.Google Scholar
  28. Roff, D.A., 1995. The estimation of genetic correlations from phenotypic correlations: a test of Cheverud's conjecture. Heredity 74: 481–490.Google Scholar
  29. Roff, D.A., 1996. The evolution of genetic correlations: an analysis of patterns. Evolution 50: 1392–1403.Google Scholar
  30. Roff, D.A., 1997. Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Roff, D.A. & T.A. Mousseau, 1987. Quantitative genetics and fitness: lessons from Drosophila. Heredity 58: 103–118.Google Scholar
  32. Roff, D.A. & A. Simons, 1997. The quantitative genetics of wing dimorphism under laboratory and ‘field’ conditions in the cricket Gryllus pennsylvanicus. Heredity 78: 235–240.Google Scholar
  33. Simmons, L.W. & P.I. Ward, 1991. The heritability of sexual dimorphic traits in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria (L.). J. Evol. Biol. 4: 593–601.Google Scholar
  34. Simons, A. & D.A. Roff, 1994. The effect of environmental variability on the heritabilities of traits of a field cricket. Evolution 48: 1637–1649.Google Scholar
  35. Simons, A. & D.A. Roff, 1996. The effect of a variable environment on the genetic correlation structure in a field cricket. Evolution 50: 267–275.Google Scholar
  36. Via, S., 1984. The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. II. Genetic correlations in larval performance within and among host plants. Evolution 38: 896–905.Google Scholar
  37. Ward, P.I., 2000. Cryptic female choice in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria. Evolution 54: 1680–1686.Google Scholar
  38. Weigensberg, I. & D.A. Roff, 1996. Natural heritabilities: can they be reliably estimated in the laboratory? Evolution 50: 2149–2157.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolf U. Blanckenhorn
    • 1
  1. 1.Zoologisches MuseumUniversität Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190ZürichSwitzerland (Phone

Personalised recommendations