4.2 Article

Ancestral populations perform better in a novel environment: domestication of Mediterranean fruit fly populations from five global regions

期刊

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 102, 期 2, 页码 334-345

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01579.x

关键词

Ceratitis capitata; genetic differentiation; invasion; invasive species; life history evolution; Tephritidae

资金

  1. National Institute on Ageing [P01-AG022500-01, P01-AG08761-10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Geographically isolated populations of a species may differ in several aspects of life history, morphology, behaviour and genetic structure as a result of adaptation in ecologically diverse habitats. We used a global invasive species, the Mediterranean fruit fly (medfly), to investigate whether adaptation to a novel environment differs among geographically isolated populations that vary in major life history components, such as life span and reproduction. We used wild populations from five global regions (Kenya, Hawaii, Guatemala, Portugal and Greece). Adult demographic traits were monitored in the F-2, F-5, F-7 and F-9 generations in captivity. Although domestication in constant laboratory conditions had a different effect on the mortality and reproductive rates of the different populations, a general trend of decreasing life span and age of first reproduction was observed for most medfly populations tested. However, taking into account the longevity of both sexes, age-specific reproductive schedules and average reproductive rates, we found that the ancestral Kenyan population kept the above life history traits stable during domestication compared with the other populations tested. These findings provide important insights into the life history evolution of this model species, and suggest that ancestral medfly populations perform better than the derived, invasive ones in a novel environment. (C) 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 102, 334-345.

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