4.5 Article

Genetic and environmental canalization are not associated among altitudinally varying populations ofDrosophila melanogaster

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 74, Issue 8, Pages 1755-1771

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/evo.14039

Keywords

Adaptation; body size; canalization; cell size; Drosophila melanogaster; geometric morphometrics; high altitude; phenotypic integration; wing shape

Funding

  1. NSERC (Canada) Discovery and Discovery accelerator grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Organisms are exposed to environmental and mutational effects influencing both mean and variance of phenotypes. Potentially deleterious effects arising from this variation can be reduced by the evolution of buffering (canalizing) mechanisms, ultimately reducing phenotypic variability. There has been interest regarding the conditions enabling the evolution of canalization. Under some models, the circumstances under which genetic canalization evolves are limited despite apparent empirical evidence for it. It has been argued that genetic canalization evolves as a correlated response to environmental canalization (congruence model). Yet, empirical evidence has not consistently supported predictions of a correlation between genetic and environmental canalization. In a recent study, a population ofDrosophilaadapted to high altitude showed evidence of genetic decanalization relative to those from low altitudes. Using strains derived from these populations, we tested if they varied for multiple aspects of environmental canalization We observed the expected differences in wing size, shape, cell (trichome) density and mutational defects between high- and low-altitude populations. However, we observed little evidence for a relationship between measures of environmental canalization with population or with defect frequency. Our results do not support the predicted association between genetic and environmental canalization.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available