2021
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.7770
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of adaptation to urea on feeding rates and growth in Drosophila larvae

Abstract: An important focus of evolutionary research has been the elucidation of how phenotypes affect survival and reproduction (e.g., see Abrahamson & Weiss, 1997). Differential survival that results from phenotypic differentiation should then lead to changes in the genetic structure of populations (Lewontin, 1974). Making the connection between genes and phenotypes has been one of the more difficult challenges in evolutionary biology except for traits under simple genetic control. Advances in DNA sequencing technolo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
(95 reference statements)
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The broadly consistent results from the r-and K-populations and the CU and UU populations, together with similar results from the rK and rrK populations (Guo et al 1991), resulted in the canonical model for adaptation to larval crowding in D. melanogaster populations: these populations would exhibit increased pre-adult competitive ability and larval feeding rate, foraging path length, and tolerance to ammonia and urea, but would show reduced food to biomass conversion efficiency as a trade-off (Mueller 1997;Mueller et al 2005;Mueller 2009;Mueller and Cabral 2012;Mueller and Barter 2015;Bitner et al 2021). The canonical model was further strengthened by observations in D. melanogaster of greater pre-adult competitive ability in populations selected for increased larval feeding rate (Burnet et al 1977), and the evolution of reduced pre-adult competitive ability in populations that evolved reduced larval feeding rate due to selection for either rapid pre-adult development (Prasad et al 2001;Shakarad et al 2005;Rajamani et al 2006) or for increased parasitoid resistance (Fellowes et al 1998(Fellowes et al , 1999.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…The broadly consistent results from the r-and K-populations and the CU and UU populations, together with similar results from the rK and rrK populations (Guo et al 1991), resulted in the canonical model for adaptation to larval crowding in D. melanogaster populations: these populations would exhibit increased pre-adult competitive ability and larval feeding rate, foraging path length, and tolerance to ammonia and urea, but would show reduced food to biomass conversion efficiency as a trade-off (Mueller 1997;Mueller et al 2005;Mueller 2009;Mueller and Cabral 2012;Mueller and Barter 2015;Bitner et al 2021). The canonical model was further strengthened by observations in D. melanogaster of greater pre-adult competitive ability in populations selected for increased larval feeding rate (Burnet et al 1977), and the evolution of reduced pre-adult competitive ability in populations that evolved reduced larval feeding rate due to selection for either rapid pre-adult development (Prasad et al 2001;Shakarad et al 2005;Rajamani et al 2006) or for increased parasitoid resistance (Fellowes et al 1998(Fellowes et al , 1999.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…In the current study, we did not include an actual reduction in waste levels within larvae due to detoxification, although this can certainly be implemented in the future. Moreover, this relationship between waste levels and bite rate could work independently of the knowledge that late-eclosing adults in some crowding-adapted populations evolved reduced feeding rate alongside increased waste tolerance (Borash et al, 1998), or that populations adapted to tolerate high levels of metabolic waste products such as urea or ammonia showed the evolution of lower feeding rates compared to unselected control populations (Borash et al, 2000;Bitner et al, 2021).…”
Section: Findings From Overall Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%