Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Heredity
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • Log in
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. heredity
  3. original article
  4. article
The evolutionary history of Drosophila buzzatii. XIV. Larger flies mate more often in nature
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Published: 01 October 1988

The evolutionary history of Drosophila buzzatii. XIV. Larger flies mate more often in nature

  • M Santos1,
  • A Ruiz1,
  • A Barbadilla1,
  • J E Quezada-Diaz1,
  • E Hasson1 na1 &
  • …
  • A Fontdevila1 

Heredity volume 61, pages 255–262 (1988)Cite this article

  • 458 Accesses

  • 104 Citations

  • Metrics details

Abstract

Body size of wild mating males and females of the cactophilic species Drosophila buzzatii was larger and tended to be less variable than that of randomly sampled flies. The intensity of sexual selection was estimated to be 0·34 in males and 0·16 in females (average 0·25). Coefficients of rank correlation for the body size of mating pairs are not statistically different from 0, pointing out that no significant assortment for size occurs in our sample. The results can be interpreted as due to the vigour or general activity levels of larger flies which are more likely to encounter suitable mates than smaller ones, although differences in size could exist among age-classes.

References

  • Andersson, M. 1982. Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature, 299, 818–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, S J. 1983. Sexual selection: the interface of theory and empiricism. In Bateson, P. (ed.) Mate Choice, Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 67–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, S J, and Wade, M J. 1984a. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution, 38, 709–719.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, S J, and Wade, M J. 1984b. On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: applications. Evolution, 38, 720–734.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, J S F. 1977. Cactus-breeding Drosophila: A system for the measurement of natural selection. In Christiansen, F. B. and Fenchel, T. M. (ed.) Measuring Selection in Natural Populations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 403–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, J S F, and East, P D. 1980. Evidence for selection following perturbation of allozyme frequencies in a natural population of Drosophila. Nature, 284, 166–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, J S F, and Fredline, D K. 1985. Reproductive biology of Drosophila buzzatii. Dros InfServ, 61, 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, A J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berven, K A. 1981. Mate choice in the wood frog, Rana sylvatica. Evolution, 35, 707–722.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bundgaard, J, and Christiansen, F B. 1972. Dynamics of polymorphisms. I. Selection components in an experimental population of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 71, 439–460.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cochram, W C, and Cox, G M. 1957. Experimental Designs, 2nd ed., JohnWiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C R. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, J R. 1979. Utilization of morphological traits for the analysis of genetic variability in wild populations. Aquilo Ser Zool, 20, 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, N B, and Halliday, T R. 1979. Competitive mate searching in male common toads, Bufo bufo Anim Behav, 27, 1253–1267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eanes, W F, Gaffney, P M, Koehn, R K, and Simon, C M. 1977. A study of sexual selection in natural populations of the milkweed beetle Tetraopes tetraophthalmus. In Christiansen, F. B. and Fenchel, T. M. (eds) Measuring Selection in Natural Populations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J A. 1986. Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, A W. 1983. Functional aspects of Drosophila courtship. Biol Rev, 58, 275–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, L S, and Ewing, A W. 1984. Courtship in Drosophila melanogaster: behaviour of mixed sex groups in large observation chambers. Behaviour, 90, 184–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairchild, L. 1981. Mate selection and behavioral thermoregulation in Fowler's toads. Science, 212, 950–951.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Falconer, D S. 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 2nd ed. Longman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fincke, O M. 1986. Lifetime reproductive success and the opportunity for selection in a nonterritorial damselfly (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Evolution, 40, 791–803.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fogleman, J C. 1982. The role of volatiles in the ecology of cactophilic Drosophila. In Barker, J. S. F. and Starmer, W. T. (eds) Ecological Genetics and Evolution: The Cactus-Yeast-Drosophila Model System, Academic Press, Sydney, pp. 191–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogleman, J C, and Starmer, W T. 1985. Analysis of the community structure of yeasts associated with the decaying stems of cactus. III. Stenocereus thurberi Microb Ecol, 11, 165–173.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, T. 1983. Do frogs and toads choose their mates? Nature, 306, 226–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houde, A E. 1987. Mate choice based upon naturally occurring color-pattern variation in a guppy population. Evolution, 41, 1–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R D. 1979. Estimating reproductive success in natural populations. Amer Natur, 114, 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R D. 1980. Mating behaviour and mating success in wood frogs, Rana sylvatica. Anim Behav, 28, 705–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R D, and Kluge, A G. 1985. Proximate mechanisms of sexual selection in wood frogs. Evolution, 39, 260–277.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knoppien, P. 1985. Rare male mating advantage: a review. Biol Rev, 60, 81–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, W D, and Albano, S S. 1987. Lifetime reproductive success, selection, and the opportunity for selection in the white-tailed skimmer Plathemis lydia (Odonata: Libellulidae). Evolution, 41, 22–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lande, R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution, 34, 294–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majerus, M E N. 1986. The genetics and evolution of female choice. Trends Ecol Evol, 1, 1–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Majerus, M E N, O'Donald, P, and Weir, J. 1982. Female mating preference is genetic. Nature, 300, 521–523.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markow, T A. 1982. Mating systems of cactophilic Drosophila. In Barker, J. S. F. and Starmer, W. T. (eds) Ecological Genetics and Evolution: The Cactus-Yeast-Drosophila Model System. Academic Press, Sydney, pp. 273–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markow, T A, and Ankney, P F. 1984. Drosophila males contribute to oogenesis in a multiple mating species. Science, 224, 302–303.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L G. 1964. Stabilizing selection for mating fitness in natural populations of Tetraopes. Evolution, 18, 492–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L G. 1969. Mating selection in the California Oak moth (Lepidoptera, Dioptidae). Evolution, 23, 55–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L G. 1980. Sexual selection and the evolution of pair-bonding in soldier beetles. Evolution, 34, 174–180.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J, and Brown, R L W. 1986. Competition and body size. Theor Pop Biol, 30, 166–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mccauley, D E. Geographic variation in body size and its relation to the mating structure of Tetraopes populations. Heredity, 42, 143–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mccauley, D E. 1983. An estimate of the relative opportunities for natural and sexual selection in a population of milkweed beetles. Evolution, 37, 701–707.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mccauley, D E, and Wade, M J. 1978. Female choice and the mating structure of a natural population of the soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Evolution, 32, 771–775.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mcfarquhar, A M, and Robertson, F W. 1963. The lack of evidence for co-adaptation in crosses between geographical races of Drosophila subobscura Coll. Genet Res, 4, 104–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mclain, D K. 1981. Interspecific interference competition and mate choice in the soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 9, 65–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mclain, D K. 1982. Density dependent sexual selection and positive phenotypic assortative mating in natural populations of the soldier beetle, Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus. Evolution, 36, 1227–1235.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O'Donald, P. 1980. Genetic Models of Sexual Selection. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, L. 1980. Mate choice increases a component of offspring fitness in fruit flies. Nature, 283, 290–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, L, Hoffman, A, and Jones, J S. 1987. Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila pseudoobscura under field conditions. Anim Behav, 35, 468–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, J T. 1947. The insemination reaction and its bearing on the problem of speciation in the mulleri subgroup. Univ Texas Publ, 4720, 41–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, T D. 1984. Sexual selection on body size, territory and plumage variables in a population of Darwin's finches. Evolution, 38, 327–341.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prout, T. 1971. The relation between fitness components and population prediction in Drosophila. I. The estimation of fitness components. Genetics, 68, 127–149.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Read, A F. 1986. Female mate choice in pied flycatchers: an answer and a problem. Trends Ecol Evol, 1, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, F W. 1957a. Studies in quantitative inheritance. X. Genetic variation of ovary size in Drosophila. J Genet, 55, 410–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, F W. 1957b. Studies in quantitative inheritance XI. Genetic and Environmental Correlation Between Body Size and Egg Production In Drosophila Melanogaster. J Genet, 55, 428–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, F W. 1960. The ecological genetics of growth in Drosophila. I. Body size and development time on different diets. Genet Res, 1, 288–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, F W. 1987. Variation of body size within and between wild populations of Drosophila buzzatii. Genetica, 72, 111–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J G M. 1986. Female choice, male strategies and the role of vocalizations in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Anim Behav, 34, 773–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roff, D A. 1981. On being the right size. Amer Natur, 118, 405–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roff, D A. 1986. Predicting body size with life history models. BioScience, 36, 316–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roff, D A, and Mousseau, T A. 1987. Quantitative genetics and fitness: lessons from Drosophila. Heredity, 58, 103–118.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roig, E, Ruiz, A, and Fontdevila, A. 1986. Análisis comparativo del comportamiento de apareamiento de las especies de Drosophila del cluster buzzatii. XXII. Jornadas de Genética Luso-Españolas. Oviedo (Spain).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, A, Fontdevila, A, Santos, M, Seoane, M, and Torroja, E. 1986. The evolutionary history of Drosophila buzzatii. VIII. Evidence for endocyclic selection acting on the inversion polymorphism in a natural population. Evolution, 40, 740–755.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M J. 1983. Sexual selection and communication in a neotropical frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Evolution, 37, 261–272.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sang, J H. 1978. The nutritional requirements of Drosophila. In Ashburner, M. and Wright, T. R. F. (eds) The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, Vol. 2a. Academic Press, London, pp. 159–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, M, Ruiz, A, and Fontdevila, A. 1988. The evolutionary history of Drosophila buzzatii. XIII. Random differentiation cannot explain all the observed chromosomal variation in a structured natural population. Amer Natur (in press).

  • Scheiring, J F. 1977. Stabilizing selection for size as related to mating fitness in Tetraopes. Evolution, 31, 447–449.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy, W A. 1982. The evolutionary effects of mate selection. Ann Rev Ecol Syst, 13, 57–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semler, D E. 1971. Some apsects of adaptation in a polymorphism for breeding colours in the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). J Zool, 165, 291–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S. 1956. Non-Parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Co., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R R, and Rohlf, F J. 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. W. H. Freeman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokoloff, A. 1957. Discussion after paper by A. Milne: “Theories of natural control of insect populations”. Cold Spring Harbor Symp quant Biol, 22, 268–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiess, E B. 1970. Mating propensity and its genetic basis in Drosophila. In Hecht, M. K. and Steere, W. C. (eds) Essays in Evolution and Genetics in Honor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 315–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiess, E B. 1982. Do female flies choose their mates? Amer Natur, 119, 675–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spieth, H T. 1952. Mating behavior within the genus Drosophila (Diptera). Bull Amer Museum Nat Hist, 99, 395–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spieth, H T, and Ringo, J M. 1983. Mating behavior and sexual isolation in Drosophila. In Ashburner, M., Carson, H. L. and Thompson, Jr. J. N. (eds) The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, Vol. 3c, Academic Press, London, pp. 223–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, W T. 1982. Analysis of the community structure of yeasts associated with the decaying stems of cactus. I. Stenocereus gummosus. Microb Ecol, 8, 71–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, W T, Peris, F, and Fontdevila, A. 1988. The transmission of yeast by Drosophila buzzatii during courtship and mating and through the pupal period. Anim Behav (in press).

  • Taylor, C E, Pereda, A D, and Ferrari, J A. 1987. On the correlation between mating success and offspring quality in Drosophila melanogaster. Amer Natur, 129, 721–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R. 1976. Sexual selection and nuptial feeding behavior in Bittacus apicalis (Insecta: Mecoptera). Amer Natur, 110, 529–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R. 1980. Mate choice in Hylobittacus apicalis (Insecta: Mecoptera) and its relation to some models of female choice. Evolution, 34, 519–538.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R. 1983. Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Amer Natur, 122, 765–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, M J, and Arnold, S J. 1980. The intensity of sexual selection in relation to male sexual behavior, female choice, and sperm precedence. Anim Behav, 28, 446–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickman, P. 1985. Territorial defence and mating success in males of the small heath butterfly, Coenonympha pamphilus L. (Lepidoptera: Satyridae). Anim Behav, 33, 1162–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilburg, H M, Rubenstein, D I, and Fairchild, L. 1978. Sexual selection in toads: the roles of female choice and male body size. Evolution, 32, 264–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, G S. 1987. Equilibrium analysis of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution, 41, 11–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. E Hasson: G.I.B.E. Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas, F.C.E. y N., U.B.A. Pabellón 2, 4° piso, Ciudad Universitaria Núñez, 1428. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Genética y Microbiología, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, (Barcelona), 08193, Spain

    M Santos, A Ruiz, A Barbadilla, J E Quezada-Diaz, E Hasson & A Fontdevila

Authors
  1. M Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A Barbadilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J E Quezada-Diaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E Hasson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A Fontdevila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Santos, M., Ruiz, A., Barbadilla, A. et al. The evolutionary history of Drosophila buzzatii. XIV. Larger flies mate more often in nature. Heredity 61, 255–262 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1988.113

Download citation

  • Received: 22 February 1988

  • Issue Date: 01 October 1988

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1988.113

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

  • Divergent patterns of correlated evolution in primary and secondary sexual traits of cactophilic Drosophila

    • Julián Padró
    • Juan Vrdoljak
    • Ignacio M. Soto

    Evolutionary Ecology (2019)

  • Experimental Evolution of Alkaloid Tolerance in Sibling Drosophila Species with Different Degrees of Specialization

    • Julián Padró
    • Diego N. De Panis
    • Ignacio M. Soto

    Evolutionary Biology (2018)

  • Effect of Drosophila melanogaster Female Size on Male Mating Success

    • Enrique Turiegano
    • Ignacio Monedero
    • Inmaculada Canal

    Journal of Insect Behavior (2013)

  • Aedeagal Divergence in Sympatric Populations of Two Sibling Species of Cactophilic Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae): Evidence of Character Displacement?

    • Ignacio M Soto

    Neotropical Entomology (2012)

  • Mating success depends on rearing substrate in cactophilic Drosophila

    • Juan Hurtado
    • Eduardo M. Soto
    • Esteban Hasson

    Evolutionary Ecology (2012)

Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • Reviews & Analysis
  • News & Comment
  • Podcasts
  • Current issue
  • Collections
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • Journal Information
  • Open access publishing
  • About the Editors
  • Contact
  • About the Partner
  • For Advertisers
  • Subscribe

Publish with us

  • For Authors & Referees
  • Language editing services
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Heredity (Heredity) ISSN 1365-2540 (online) ISSN 0018-067X (print)

nature.com sitemap

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • Nano
  • Protocol Exchange
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Live Expert Trainer-led workshops
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Career development

  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences
  • Nature events

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Italy
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Korea
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature Limited