Nonadditive indirect effects of group genetic diversity on larval viability in Drosophila melanogaster imply key role of maternal decision‐making

Genetic variation can have important consequences for populations: high population genetic diversity is typically associated with ecological success. Some mechanisms that account for these benefits assume that local social groups with high genetic diversity are more successful than low‐diversity groups. At the same time, active decision‐making by individuals can influence group genetic diversity. Here, we examine how maternal decisions that determine group genetic diversity influence the viability of Drosophila melanogaster larvae. Our groups contained wild‐type larvae, whose genetic diversity we manipulated, and genetically marked ‘tester’ larvae, whose genotype and frequency were identical in all trials. We measured wild‐type and tester viability for each group. Surprisingly, the viability of wild‐type larvae was neither augmented nor reduced when group genetic diversity was altered. However, the viability of the tester genotype was substantially depressed in large, high‐diversity groups. Further, not all high‐diversity groups produced this effect: certain combinations of wild‐type genotypes were deleterious to tester viability, while other groups of the same diversity—but containing different wild‐type genotypes—were not deleterious. These deleterious combinations of wild‐type genotypes could not be predicted by observing the performance of the same tester and wild‐type genotypes in low‐diversity groups. Taken together, these results suggest that nonadditive interactions among genotypes, rather than genetic diversity per se, account for between‐group differences in viability in D. melanogaster and that predicting the consequences of genetic diversity at the population level may not be straightforward.

[1]  D. Marshall,et al.  DOES GENETIC DIVERSITY REDUCE SIBLING COMPETITION? , 2012, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[2]  D. Bolnick,et al.  EFFECTS OF FOUNDING GENETIC VARIATION ON ADAPTATION TO A NOVEL RESOURCE , 2011, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[3]  J. Saltz NATURAL GENETIC VARIATION IN SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT CHOICE: CONTEXT‐DEPENDENT GENE–ENVIRONMENT CORRELATION IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER , 2011, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[4]  N. Eisenhauer,et al.  Genotypic richness and dissimilarity opposingly affect ecosystem functioning. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[5]  Jared L. Strasburg,et al.  Effective population size is positively correlated with levels of adaptive divergence among annual sunflowers. , 2011, Molecular biology and evolution.

[6]  J. Saltz,et al.  Natural Genetic Variation in Social Niche Construction: Social Effects of Aggression Drive Disruptive Sexual Selection in Drosophila melanogaster , 2011, The American Naturalist.

[7]  S. Schreiber,et al.  Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[8]  J. Saltz,et al.  Natural Variation in Decision-Making Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster , 2011, PloS one.

[9]  James H Fowler,et al.  Correlated genotypes in friendship networks , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  R. Woollacott,et al.  Larval settlement preference maximizes genetic mixing in an inbreeding population of a simultaneous hermaphrodite (Bugula stolonifera, Bryozoa) , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[11]  D. Bolnick,et al.  Intraspecific genetic variation and competition interact to influence niche expansion , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  M. Karlsson,et al.  Diversity and Relatedness Enhance Survival in Colour Polymorphic Grasshoppers , 2010, PloS one.

[13]  B. Lazzaro,et al.  Larval food quality affects adult (but not larval) immune gene expression independent of effects on general condition , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[14]  K. Whitney,et al.  Population genetic diversity influences colonization success , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[15]  R. Dukas,et al.  Social learning about egg-laying substrates in fruitflies , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  U. Heberlein,et al.  Oviposition preference for and positional avoidance of acetic acid provide a model for competing behavioral drives in Drosophila , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Deepa Agashe The Stabilizing Effect of Intraspecific Genetic Variation on Population Dynamics in Novel and Ancestral Habitats , 2009, The American Naturalist.

[18]  Alan H. Krakauer,et al.  Interspecific brood parasitism in galliform birds , 2009 .

[19]  David Crews,et al.  Epigenetics and its implications for behavioral neuroendocrinology , 2008, Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology.

[20]  J. Poole,et al.  Fine‐scale population genetic structure in a fission–fusion society , 2008, Molecular ecology.

[21]  Mark Vellend,et al.  Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[22]  Nicholas K. Priest,et al.  Mating Frequency and Inclusive Fitness in Drosophila melanogaster , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[23]  Thomas D Seeley,et al.  Genetic Diversity in Honey Bee Colonies Enhances Productivity and Fitness , 2007, Science.

[24]  Christine W. Miller,et al.  A potential resolution to the lek paradox through indirect genetic effects , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  Mark J. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Maintaining a behaviour polymorphism by frequency-dependent selection on a single gene , 2007, Nature.

[26]  J. Tella,et al.  The Role of Despotism and Heritability in Determining Settlement Patterns in the Colonial Lesser Kestrel , 2006, The American Naturalist.

[27]  L. Simmons The Evolution of Polyandry: Sperm Competition, Sperm Selection, and Offspring Viability , 2005 .

[28]  J. Stachowicz,et al.  Genetic diversity enhances the resistance of a seagrass ecosystem to disturbance , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  B. Kempenaers,et al.  Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings , 2003, Nature.

[30]  P. Brakefield ARTIFICIAL SELECTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLOGICALLY RELEVANT PHENOTYPES , 2003 .

[31]  B. Wertheim,et al.  Allee effect in larval resource exploitation in Drosophila: an interaction among density of adults, larvae, and micro‐organisms , 2002 .

[32]  B. Wertheim,et al.  Behavioural plasticity in support of a benefit for aggregation pheromone use in Drosophila melanogaster , 2002 .

[33]  V. Loeschcke,et al.  Larval crowding in Drosophila melanogaster induces Hsp70 expression, and leads to increased adult longevity and adult thermal stress resistance. , 2001, Journal of insect physiology.

[34]  M. Brown,et al.  Heritable basis for choice of group size in a colonial bird. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  A. Suarez,et al.  Reduced genetic variation and the success of an invasive species. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  L. Cook The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection — A Complete Variorum Edition , 2000, Heredity.

[37]  M. Petrie,et al.  Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits , 2000, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[38]  J. F. Storz Genetic Consequences of Mammalian Social Structure , 1999 .

[39]  A. J. Moore,et al.  Interacting Phenotypes and the Evolutionary Process. II. Selection Resulting from Social Interactions , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[40]  P. Keightley,et al.  Mapping quantitative trait loci affecting sternopleural bristle number in Drosophila melanogaster using changes of marker allele frequencies in divergently selected lines. , 1998, Genetical research.

[41]  A. Clark,et al.  INFERENCE OF SPERM COMPETITION FROM BROODS OF FIELD‐CAUGHT DROSOPHILA , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[42]  D. Promislow,et al.  Adult fitness consequences of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  A. Joshi,et al.  Oviposition preference for novel versus normal food resources in laboratory populations ofDrosophila melanogaster , 1998, Journal of Biosciences.

[44]  A. Pusey,et al.  Inbreeding avoidance in animals. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[45]  Peter Lesica,et al.  When Are Peripheral Populations Valuable for Conservation , 1995 .

[46]  B. Burnet,et al.  Behavioural correlates of selection for oviposition by Drosophila melanogaster females in a patchy environment , 1994, Heredity.

[47]  M. Toro,et al.  GENETIC HETEROGENEITY INCREASES VIABILITY IN COMPETING GROUPS OF DROSOPHILA HYDEI , 1993, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[48]  Mauro Santos,et al.  On the use of tester stocks to predict the competitive ability of genotypes , 1992, Heredity.

[49]  L. Partridge,et al.  A cost of mating in female fruitflies , 1989, Nature.

[50]  A. Łomnicki,et al.  Ecology of kin and nonkin larval interactions in Tribolium beetles , 1988, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[51]  M. Toro,et al.  Competition and genotypic variability in Drosophila melanogaster , 1988, Heredity.

[52]  L. Partridge,et al.  Variation in male fertility explains an apparent effect of genotypic diversity on success in larval competition in Drosophila melanogaster , 1986, Heredity.

[53]  R. Grosberg,et al.  The genetic control and consequences of kin recognition by the larvae of a colonial marine invertebrate , 1986, Nature.

[54]  A. Hoffmann,et al.  The Effect of Resource Subdivision on Genetic Variation in Drosophila , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[55]  M. Toro,et al.  Competition of similar and non-similar genotypes , 1982, Nature.

[56]  M. Sokolowski Foraging strategies ofDrosophila melanogaster: A chromosomal analysis , 1980, Behavior genetics.

[57]  W. Atkinson A FIELD INVESTIGATION OF LARVAL COMPETITION IN DOMESTIC DROSOPHILA , 1979 .

[58]  M. M. Dawood,et al.  The effect of larval interaction on viability in Drosophila melanogaster. 3. Effects of biotic residues. , 1969, Genetics.

[59]  M. M. Dawood,et al.  The effect of larval interaction on viability in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Changes in age structure. , 1969, Genetics.

[60]  D. Weisbrot Genotypic interactions among competing strains and species of Drosophila. , 1966, Genetics.

[61]  E. del Solar,et al.  Choice of Oviposition in Drosophila melanogaster , 1966, The American Naturalist.

[62]  J. M. Smith Group Selection and Kin Selection , 1964, Nature.

[63]  V. Wynne-Edwards Group Selection and Kin Selection , 1964, Nature.

[64]  R. Lewontin THE EFFECTS OF POPULATION DENSITY AND COMPOSITION ON VIABILITY IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER , 1955 .

[65]  Carlos Garcı́a,et al.  Short-term evolution of competition between genetically homogeneous and heterogeneous populations of Drosophila melanogaster , 1999 .

[66]  Bruce Waldman The Ecology of Kin Recognition , 1988 .

[67]  M. Sokolowski Genetics and ecology of Drosophila melanogaster larval foraging and pupation behaviour , 1985 .

[68]  Tsuguhiko Takamura Behavior genetics of choice of oviposition sites in Drosophila melanogaster. IV. Differentiation of oviposition force in the melanogaster species sub-group.:IV. Differentiation of oviposition force in the melanogaster species sub-group , 1984 .

[69]  Tsuguhiko Takamura BEHAVIOR GENETICS OF CHOICE OF OVIPOSITION SITE IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER :II. ANALYSIS OF NATURAL POPULATION , 1980 .

[70]  Y. Fuyama,et al.  Behavior genetics of choice of oviposition sites inDrosophila melanogaster. I. Genetic variability and analysis of behavior , 1980, Behavior genetics.

[71]  L. Partridge Mate choice increases a component of offspring fitness in fruit flies , 1980, Nature.

[72]  D. Wilson A theory of group selection. , 1975, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[73]  Maria B Sokolowskp Foraging Strategies of Drosophila melanogaster : A Chromosomal Analysis , 2022 .