Abstract
Mating activity and wing length were investigated in the F1 progeny ofDrosophila willistoni females collected in the field to examine any possible relationship between body size and mating success. The flies were observed in a mating chamber under laboratory conditions. No significant differences in wing length were observed between copulating and noncopulating flies, and there was no significant correlation between wing length and copulation latency for both males and females. These results therefore suggest that the commonly accepted view that large body size is positively correlated with mating success inDrosophila does not always hold true. The results support the view that the extent of environmentally induced variation in body size may be an important factor in determining whether an association between body size and mating success is observed inDrosophila species.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bouletreau J. 1978 Ovarian activity and reproductive potential in a natural population ofDrosophila melanogaster.Oecologia 35, 319–342.
Cade W. H. 1984 Genetic variation underlying sexual behavior and reproduction.Am. Zool. 24, 355–366.
Dobzhansky Th. 1965 “Wild” and “domestic” species ofDrosophila. InThe genetics of colonizing species (ed. H. B. Baker and G. L. Stebbins), pp. 533–546. Academic Press, New York.
Droney D. 1996 Environmental influences on male courtship and implications for female choice in a lekking HawaiianDrosophila.Anim. Behav. 51, 821–820.
Ehrman L. and Powell J. R. 1982Drosophila willistoni species group. InThe genetics and biology of Drosophila (ed. M. Ashburner, H. L. Carson and J. R. Thompson), vol. 3b, pp. 193–225. Academic Press, New York.
Elens A. and Wattiaux J. M. 1964 Direct observation of sexual isolation.Dros. Inf. Serv. 39, 118–119.
Ewing A. W. 1961 Body size and courtship behaviour inDrosophila melanogaster.Anim. Behav. 9, 93–99.
Gromko M. H. and Markow T. A. 1993 Courtship and remating in field populations ofDrosophila.Anim. Behav. 45, 253–262.
Hegde S. N. and Krishna M. S. 1999 Body size and fitness characters inDrosophila malerkotliana.Curr. Sci. 77, 178–179.
Hoffmann A. A. 1994 Genetic analysis of territoriality inDrosophila melanogaster. InQuantitative genetic studies of behavioral evolution (ed. C. R. B. Boake), pp. 188–205. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Joshi A., Do M. H. and Mueller L. D. 1999 Poisson distribution of male mating success in laboratory populations ofDrosophila melanogaster.Genet. Res. 73, 239–249.
Knapp R. A. and Kovach J. T. 1991 Courtship as an honest indicator of male parental quality in the bicolor damselfish,Stegastes partitus. Behav. Ecol. 2, 295–300.
Lucchese M. E. P. 1994 Análise morfométrica e bioindicaÇÃo em populaÇ~∄es urbanas e selvagens deDrosophila willistoni. M.Sc. thesis. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Markow T. A. 1988 Reproductive behavior ofDrosophila in the laboratory and in the field.J. Comp. Psychol. 102, 169–173.
Markow T. A. and Ricker J. P. 1992 Male size, developmental stability, and mating success in natural populations of threeDrosophila species.Heredity 69, 122–127.
Markow T. A. and Sawka S. 1992 Dynamics of mating success in experimental groups ofDrosophila melanogaster (Diptera, Drosophilidae).J. Insect Behav. 5, 375–383.
Markow T. A., Bustoz D. and Pitnick S. 1996 Sexual selection and a secondary sexual character in twoDrosophila species.Anim. Behav. 52, 759–766.
Parsons P. A. 1974 Male mating speed as a component of fitness inDrosophila.Behav. Genet. 4, 395–404.
Partridge L. and Farquhar M. 1983 Lifetime mating success of male fruitflies (Drosophila melanogaster) is related to their size.Anim. Behav. 31, 871–877.
Partridge L., Hoffman A. and Jones J. S. 1987a Male size and mating success inDrosophila melanogaster andD. pseudoobscura under field conditions.Anim. Behav. 35, 468–476.
Partridge L., Ewing E. and Chandler A. 1987b Male size and mating success inDrosophila melanogaster. The role of female and male behavior.Anim. Behav. 35, 555–562.
Reeve E. C. 1950 Genetical aspects of size allometry.Proc. R. Soc. London B137, 515–518.
Regner L. P. and Valente V. L. S. 1993Drosophila willistoni mating activity—Urbanization effects and a search for its chromosomal basis.Evol. Biol. 7, 327–349.
Robertson F. W. and Reeve E. 1952 Studies in quantitative inheritance. I. The effects of selection on wing and thorax length inDrosophila melanogaster.J. Genet. 50, 414–448.
Santos M. 1996 Apparent directional selection of body size inDrosophila buzzatii: larval crowding and male mating success.Evolution 50, 2530–2535.
Santos M., Ruiz A., Barbadilla A., Quezada-Díaz J. E., Hasson E. and Fontdevila A. 1988 The evolutionary history ofDrosophila buzzatii. XVI. Larger flies mate more often in nature.Heredity 61, 255–262.
Valente V. L. S. and AraÚ⦤ A. M. 1986 Comments on breeding sites ofDrosophila willistoni Sturtevant (Diptera, Drosophilidae).Rev. Bras. Entomol. 30, 281–286.
Valente V. L. S., Ruszczyk A. and Santos R. A. 1993 Chromosomal polymorphism in urbanDrosophila willistoni.Braz. J. Genet. 16, 307–319.
Wilkinson G. 1987 Equilibrium analysis of sexual selection inDrosophila melanogaster.Evolution 41, 11–21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Basso Da Silva, L., Valente, V.L.S. Body size and mating success inDrosophila willistoni are uncorrelated under laboratory conditions. J Genet 80, 77–81 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02728333
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02728333