4.2 Article

Wing morphology is related to host plants in cactophilic Drosophila gouveai and Drosophila antonietae (Diptera, Drosophilidae)

期刊

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 95, 期 4, 页码 655-665

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.00980.x

关键词

cactus; geometric morphometrics; morphological evolution; phenotypic plasticity

资金

  1. ANPCyT
  2. Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) from Argentina
  3. Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP)
  4. CNPq
  5. FAPESP
  6. FINEP from Brazil
  7. CAPES/SECyT [071/04]
  8. CONICET (Argentina)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A central issue in evolutionary biology is to understand the mechanisms promoting morphological evolution during speciation. In a previous study, we showed that the Neotropical cactophilic sibling species Drosophila gouveai and Drosophila antonietae can be reared in media prepared with their presumptive natural host plants (Pilosocereus machrisis and Cereus hildmaniannus) and that egg to adult viability is not independent of the cactus host. In the present study, we investigate the effects of ecological and genetic factors on interspecific divergence in wing morphology, in relation to the pattern of wing venation and phenotypic plasticity in D. gouveai and D. antonietae, by means of the comparative analysis of isofemale lines reared in the two cactus hosts. The species differed significantly in wing size and shape, although specific differences were mainly localized in a particular portion of the wing. We detected significant variation in form among lines, which was not independent of the breeding cactus, suggesting the presence of genetic variation for phenotypic plasticity and wing shape variation in both species. We discuss the results considering the plausible role of host plant use in the evolutionary history of cactophilic Drosophila inhabiting the arid zones of South America. (C) 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008, 95, 655-665.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据