1989
DOI: 10.2307/3565872
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A General Model for Individual Host Selection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

9
170
6

Year Published

1995
1995
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 198 publications
(185 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
9
170
6
Order By: Relevance
“…These authors argue that changes in host use are due to changes in overall threshold for acceptage of any host, and that changes in rank order preference are not expected. Contrary to our results, 2 studies (Harrison, 1987;Prokopy et al, 1988) Although some theoretical analyses predict that genetic correlation between preference and performance could be responsible for the maintenance of genetic variation in habitat selection (Bush, 1974; but see review in Jaenike and Holt, 1991), it is well known that genetic variation in preference may exist without correlated variation in performance and vice versa (eg, Gould, 1979;Wasserman and Futuyma, 1981;Tabashnik, 1983;Futuyma and Moreno, 1988 (Courtney et al, 1989 (Tuci6 et al, 1990) and Drosophila populations (Roff and Mousseau, 1987;Tuci6 et al 1988) and which appears to contradict Fisher's (1930) (Wasserman and Futuyma, 1981) showed that a population that had been selected for female oviposition preference on a given host species displayed the same preference for this host after the selection as a population that had been maintained without choice on the same host. These findings are in agreement with our observation for the no-choice and choice Cicer lines (table I).…”
Section: Methodscontrasting
confidence: 54%
“…These authors argue that changes in host use are due to changes in overall threshold for acceptage of any host, and that changes in rank order preference are not expected. Contrary to our results, 2 studies (Harrison, 1987;Prokopy et al, 1988) Although some theoretical analyses predict that genetic correlation between preference and performance could be responsible for the maintenance of genetic variation in habitat selection (Bush, 1974; but see review in Jaenike and Holt, 1991), it is well known that genetic variation in preference may exist without correlated variation in performance and vice versa (eg, Gould, 1979;Wasserman and Futuyma, 1981;Tabashnik, 1983;Futuyma and Moreno, 1988 (Courtney et al, 1989 (Tuci6 et al, 1990) and Drosophila populations (Roff and Mousseau, 1987;Tuci6 et al 1988) and which appears to contradict Fisher's (1930) (Wasserman and Futuyma, 1981) showed that a population that had been selected for female oviposition preference on a given host species displayed the same preference for this host after the selection as a population that had been maintained without choice on the same host. These findings are in agreement with our observation for the no-choice and choice Cicer lines (table I).…”
Section: Methodscontrasting
confidence: 54%
“…In the highly specialized Lapeyresia pomonella, however, it is clear that the evolution of increased oviposition preference for a novel host, which was initially ranked lower than the ancestral host, resulted in a change in the rank-order of host preference (Phillips & Barnes, 1975 ists on dissimilar hosts. This is in opposition to the predictions of the hierarchy threshold model (Courtney et al, 1989;Courtney & Hard, 1990), which proposes that the rank-order of host preference in insect herbivores is evolutionarily conservative. Therefore, such a model is not allowing for the existence of strong negative genetic correlations between the tendencies to accept different hosts.…”
contrasting
confidence: 49%
“…Several studies have demonstrated the existence of interor intrapopulational variability of host recognition and selection, as well as an inter-or intrapopulational variability of correlation between oviposition preference and larval performance (Ng 1988, Courtney et al 1989, Sadeghi & Gilbert 1999. This behavioral variability may be due to genetic variation among individuals in terms of the possibility of finding or choosing different hosts (Wasserman & Futuyma 1981, Jaenike 1990, or it may also be the result of experiencing different environments as adults and/or as immatures.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%