WITHIN‐ AND BETWEEN‐GENERATION EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE ON THE MORPHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER

Abstract

Abstract,-We investigated the effects of developmental and parental temperatures on several physiological and morphological traits of adult Drosophila melanogaster. Flies for the parental generation were raised at either low or moderate temperature (18°C or 25°C) and then mated in the four possible sex-by-parental temperature crosses. Their offspring were raised at either 18°C or 25°C and then scored as adults for morphological (dry body mass, wing size, and abdominal melanization [females only]), physiological (knock-down temperature, and thermal dependence of walking speed), and life history (egg size) traits. The experiment was replicated, and the factorial design allows us to determine whether and how paternal, maternal, and developmental temperatures (as well as offspring sex) influence the various traits. Sex and developmental temperature had major effects on all traits. Females had larger bodies and wings, higher knock-down temperatures, and slower speeds (but similar shaped performance curves) than males, Development at 2YC (versus at 18°C) increased knock-down temperature, increased maximal speed and thermal performance breadth, decreased the optimal temperature for walking, decreased body mass and wing size, reduced abdominal melanization, and reduced egg size. Parental temperatures influenced a few traits, but the effects were generally small relative to those of sex or developmental temperature. Flies whose mother had been raised at 25°C (versus at 18°C) had slightly higher knock-down temperature and smaller body mass. Flies whose father had been raised at 25°C had relatively longer wings. The effects of paternal, maternal, and developmental temperatures sometimes differed in direction. The existence of significant within-and between-generation effects suggests that comparative studies need to standardize thermal environments for at least two generations, that attempts to estimate "field" heritabilities may be unreliable for some traits, and that predictions of short-term evolutionary responses to selection will be difficult. The magnitude and nature of nongenetic effects on an organism's phenotype (phenotypic plasticity, norms of reaction, acclimation) have recently received considerable attention. Such nongenetic effects are relevant not only to functional biologists studying how organisms work (Somero 1995), but also to evolutionary biologists studying the dynamics of phenotypic evolution (Kirkpatrick and Lande 1989;Stearns 1989). The magnitude of phenotypic plasticity is genetically variable and can respond to selection (Gebhardt and Stearns 1988; Scheiner and Lyman 1991). However, marked phenotypic plasticity complicates attempts to predict responses to selection (Via and Lande 1985;Kirkpatrick and Lande 1989).Most studies of phenotypic plasticity have focused on the phenotypic effects of environmental factors within an individual's lifetime. For example, many studies report on the consequences of developmental regimes (temperature, food regime, or crowding) on adult size, life span, physiologic...

The impact of larval predators and competitors on the morphology and fitness of juvenile treefrogs

“…Studies on natural populations of chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata) and wood frogs have also demonstrated that frogs metamorphosing later and of smaller mass experience lower survival in the wild, although the cause of this lower survival rate is not clear (Smith 1983;Berven 1990). Studies on other taxa have shown that phenotypic plasticity exhibited early in ontogeny can affect traits (Taylor 1988;Milbrath et al 1993;Crill et al 1996;de Moed et al 1997) and performance (Ravelli et al 1976;Woollacott et al 1989;Haywood and Perrins 1992;Merilä and Svensson 1997;Pechenik et al 1996b) later in ontogeny, but rarely do we observe such dramatic and rapid impacts of larval environments on juvenile survival.…”

“…While we have abundant evidence that early environments can affect subsequent performance (growth, fecundity, and survival), we have a poor understanding of the underlying mechanisms that are responsible. One reason for this poor understanding is that few investigators examine the behavioral, physiological, and morphological traits expressed both early and later on in ontogeny (but see Tollrian 1995;Crill et al 1996;de Moed et al 1997), even though these trait changes are what collectively determine performance. Thus, we need to know how early environments affect both the subsequent traits of individuals as well as the subsequent performance of individuals.…”

Effects of induced variation in anuran larval development on postmetamorphic energy reserves and locomotion

“…In ectotherms, some traits important in locomotion, such as the number of body segments and muscle structure, are highly responsive to the temperature experienced early in development (e.g. Lindsey 1966;Lindsey and Harrington 1972;Stickland et al 1988;Shine and Harlow 1993;Partridge et al 1994;Crill et al 1996;Johnston and McLay 1997). Temperatures close to the upper and lower thermal tolerance limits generate a high probability for phenodeviants as a result of developmental stress (Smith-Gill 1983;Møller and Swaddle 1997).…”

Microgeographic variation in metabolic rate and energy storage of brown trout: countergradient selection or thermal sensitivity?

“…Alternatively, geographic variation in metabolic rates can be related to a high thermal sensitivity during early stages of development. The temperature of embryonic development can induce long-lasting or permanent phenotypic change in morphology and muscle structure (Ta˚ning, 1952;Crill et al, 1996). This source of developmental instability can have an influence on metabolic rates.…”