Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T16:11:08.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritional developmental history and its consequences for reproductive success in Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2020

Yvonne Young  and
Tristan A.F. Long Open the ORCID record for Tristan A.F. Long [Opens in a new window]
Yvonne Young
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5, Canada
Tristan A.F. Long*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5, Canada
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The characteristics of the juvenile developmental environment of an individual can have many important consequences for their adult reproductive success as it may shape the development and expression of phenotypes that are relevant to the later operation of sexual selection. Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) (Diptera: Drosophilidae) is an economically important invasive pest species that lays its eggs in many types of soft fruits and potentially experiences large intrapopulation spatial and temporal variation in its nutritional developmental environments. Here, we examine whether the larval nutritional developmental environment influences D. suzukii mate choice, egg production, and offspring performance. Using D. suzukii raised on diets differing in their nutritional quality, we examined mating preferences, fecundity, and offspring survivorship in “no-choice,” “female choice,” and “male choice” reproductive contexts. We found evidence for both adaptive and nonadaptive mate choice behaviours associated with the phenotypes of D. suzukii that had developed in different nutritional environments. These results reveal the complex nature of the relationship between the developmental environment and individual reproductive success in D. suzukii, which has important potential implications for future management plans involving this species.

Type
Research Papers
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 152 , Issue 4: The spotted-wing drosophila , August 2020 , pp. 490 - 515
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of Canada

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Subject editor: David Siaussat

References

Abed-Vieillard, D., Cortot, J., Everaerts, C., and Ferveur, J.-F. 2014. Choice alters Drosophila oviposition site preference on menthol. Biology Open, 3: 22–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amitin, E.G. and Pitnick, S. 2007. Influence of developmental environment on male- and female-mediated sperm precedence in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20: 381–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnqvist, G. 2006. Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361: 375–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashburner, M., Golic, K.G., and Hawley, R.S. 2005. Drosophila: a laboratory handbook, second edition. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, United States of America.Google Scholar
Asplen, M.K., Anfora, G., Biondi, A., Choi, D.-S., Chu, D., Daane, K.M., et al. 2015. Invasion biology of spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii): a global perspective and future priorities. Journal of Pest Science, 88: 469–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awmack, C.S. and Leather, S.R. 2002. Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 47: 817–844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateson, P. 1983. Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Bellamy, E.B., Sisterson, M.S., and Walse, S.S. 2013. Quantifying host potentials: indexing postharvest fresh fruits for spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii. Public Library of Science One, 8: e61227.Google ScholarPubMed
Bolda, M P., Goodhue, R.E., and Zalom, F.G. 2010. Spotted wing drosophila: potential economic impact of a newly established pest. Agricultural and Resource Economics Update, 13: 5–8.Google Scholar
Bonduriansky, R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biological Reviews 76: 305–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botero, C.A. and Rubenstein, D.R. 2012. Fluctuating environments, sexual selection and the evolution of fexible mate choice in birds. Public Library of Science One, 7: e32311.Google Scholar
Bretman, A., Fricke, C., Hetherington, P., Stone, R., and Chapman, T. 2010. Exposure to rivals and plastic responses to sperm competition in Drosophila melanogaster. Behavioral Ecology, 21: 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretman, A., Wetmancoat, J.D., and Chapman, T. 2013. Male control of mating duration following exposure to rivals in fruitflies. Journal of Insect Physiology, 59: 824–827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrel, J.E. and Tanner, E.M. 2002. Sex-specific food preferences in the Madagascar hissing cockroach Gromphadorhina portentosa (Dictyoptera: Blaberidae). Journal of Insect Behavior, 15: 707–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaine, A.S. and Lyon, B.E. 2008. Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science, 319: 459–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chown, S.L. and Gaston, K.J., 2010. Body size variation in insects: a macroecological perspective. Biological Reviews, 85: 139–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cockburn, A., Osmond, H.L, and Double, M.C. 2008. Swingin’ in the rain: condition dependence and sexual selection in a capricious world. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 275: 605–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotton, S., Small, J., and Pomiankowski, A. 2006. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Current Biology, 16: 755–765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Credland, P.F., Dick, K.M., and Wright, A.W. 1986. Relationships between larval density, adult size and egg production in the cowpea seed beetle. Callosobruchus maculatus. Ecological Entomology, 11: 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crumpacker, D.W. 1974. The use of micronized fluorescent dusts to mark adult Drosophila pseudoobscura. American Midland Naturalist, 91: 118–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diepenbrock, L.M., Swoboda-Bhattarai, K.A., and Burrack, H.J. 2016. Ovipositional preference, fidelity, and fitness of Drosophila suzukii in a co-occurring crop and non-crop host system. Journal of Pest Science, 89: 761–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, D.M.B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution, 43: 1308–1311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, F.A., Ballman, E., and Collins, J.A. 2019. Spotted-wing drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) adult movement, activity, and oviposition behavior in Maine wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium; Ericales: Ericaceae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 112: 1623–1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etges, W.J., Veenstra, C.L., and Jackson, L.L. 2006. Premating isolation is determined by larval rearing substrates in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis. VII. Effects of larval dietary fatty acids on adult epicuticular hydrocarbons. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 32: 2629–2646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ewing, A.W. 1983. Functional aspects of Drosophila courtship. Biological Reviews, 58: 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedina, T.Y., Kuo, T.H., Dreisewerd, K., Dierick, H.A., Yew, J.Y., and Pletcher, S.D. 2012. Dietary effects on cuticular hydrocarbons and sexual attractiveness in Drosophila. Public Library of Science One, 7: e49799.Google ScholarPubMed
Ferveur, J.-F. 2005. Cuticular hydrocarbons: their evolution and roles in Drosophila pheromonal communication. Behavior Genetics, 35: 279–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, J. and Weisberg, S. 2011. An {R} companion to applied regression, second edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, United States of America.Google Scholar
Friberg, U. 2006. Male perception of female mating status: its effect on copulation duration, sperm defence and female fitness. Animal Behaviour, 72: 1259–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Gonzalez, F., Yasui, Y., and Evans, J.P. 2015. Mating portfolios: bet-hedging, sexual selection and female, multiple mating. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 282: 20141525.Google Scholar
Gardner, D.S., Ozanne, S.E., and Sinclair, K.D. 2009. Effect of the early-life nutritional environment on fecundity and fertility in mammals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364: 3419–3427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavrilets, S., Arnqvist, G., and Friberg, U. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268: 531–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geiselhardt, S., Otte, T., and Hilker, M. 2012. Looking for a similar partner: host plants shape mating preferences of herbivorous insects by altering their contact pheromones. Ecology Letters, 15: 971–977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giraudoux, P. 2016. pgirmess: data analysis in ecology. R package version 1.6.5. Available from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pgirmess [accessed 8 April 2020].Google Scholar
Gowaty, P.A. 1997. Sexual dialectics, sexual selection, and variation in reproductive behavior. In Feminism and evolutionary biology. Edited by Gowaty, P.A.. Campman & Hill, New York, New York, United States of America. Pp. 351–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowaty, P.A. and Buschhaus, N. 1998. Ultimate causation of aggressive and forced copulation in birds: female resistance, the CODE hypothesis, and social monogamy. American Zoologist, 38: 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, S.C., Owens, I.P., and Burke, T. 1999. Environmental determination of a sexually selected trait. Nature, 400: 358–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, M.L., Hunt, J., Jennions, M.D., and Brooks, R. 2005. The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. Public Library of Science Biology, 3: 289–294.Google ScholarPubMed
Heimpel, G.E, Frelich, L.E, Landis, D.A., Hopper, K.R, Hoelmer, K.A., Sezen, Z., et al. 2010. European buckthorn and Asian soybean aphid as components of an extensive invasional meltdown in North America. Biological Invasions, 12: 2913–2931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hingle, A., Fowler, K., and Pomiankowski, A. 2001. The effect of transient food stress on female mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268: 1239–1244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, B. and Rice, W.R. 1998. Perspective: chase‐away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution, 52: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honek, A. 1993. Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects – a general relationship. Oikos, 66, 483–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horváthová, T., Nakagawa, S., and Uller, T. 2012. Strategic female reproductive investment in response to male attractiveness in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 279: 163–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, J., Brooks, R., and Jennions, M.D. 2005. Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life-history trait. American Naturalist, 166: 78–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janzen, D.H. 1977. Why fruits rot, seeds mold, and meat spoils. American Naturalist, 111: 691–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennions, M.D. and Petrie, M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biological Reviews, 75: 21–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klassen, W. and Curtis, C.F. 2005. History of the sterile insect technique. In Sterile insect technique. Edited by Dyck, V.A., Hendrichs, J., and Robinson, A.S.. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Pp. 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D., and Morley, J.. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 270: 653–664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kvarnemo, C. and Ahnesjo, I. 1996. The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11: 404–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lihoreau, M., Poissonnier, L., Isabel, G., and Dussutour, A. 2016. Drosophila females trade off good nutrition with high quality oviposition sites when choosing foods. Journal of Experimental Biology, 219: 2514–2524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J.C., Bruck, D.J., Curry, H., Edwards, D., Haviland, D.R., Steenwyk, R.A., and Yorgey, B.M. 2011. The susceptibility of small fruits and cherries to the spotted-wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii. Pest Management Science, 67: 1358–1367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, T.A., Agrawal, A.F., and Rowe, L. 2012. The effect of sexual selection on offspring fitness depends on the nature of genetic variation. Current Biology, 22: 204–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maklakov, A.A., Simpson, S.J., Zajitschek, F., Hall, M.D., Dessmann, J., Clissold, F., et al. 2008. Sex specific fitness effects of nutrient intake on reproduction and lifespan. Current Biology, 18: 1062–1066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, C.M., Doroszuk, A., and Zwaan, B.J. 2015. The effect of developmental nutrition on life span and fecundity depends on the adult reproductive environment in Drosophila melanogaster. Ecology and Evolution, 5: 1156–1168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzi, D. 2004. Parasites make male pipefish careless. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 17: 519–527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzoni, V., Gianfranco, A., and Virant-Doberlet, M. 2013. Substrate vibrations during courtship in three Drosophila species. Public Library of Science One, 8: e80708.Google ScholarPubMed
Miller, C.W. and Svensson, E.I. 2014. Sexual selection in complex environments. Annual Review of Entomology, 59: 427–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morimoto, J., Pizzari, T., and Wigby, S. 2016. Developmental environment effects on sexual selection in male and female Drosophila melanogaster. Public Library of Science One, 11: e0154468.Google ScholarPubMed
Morimoto, J. and Wigby, S. 2016. Differential effects of male nutrient balance on pre- and post-copulatory traits, and consequences for female reproduction in Drosophila melanogaster. Science Report, 6: 27673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Najarro, M.A., Sumethasorn, M., Lamoureux, A., and Turner, T.L. 2015. Choosing mates based on the diet of your ancestors: replication of non-genetic assortative mating in Drosophila melanogaster. PeerJ, 3: e1173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, G.A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Edited by Blum, M.S. and Blum, N.A.. Academic Press, New York, New York, United States of America. Pp. 123–166.Google Scholar
Partridge, L. 1980. Mate choice increases a component of offspring fitness in fruit flies. Nature, 283: 290–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, L., Ewing, A., and Chandler, A. 1987. Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster - the roles of male and female behavior. Animal Behaviour, 35: 555–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrie, M. 1994. Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature, 371: 598–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitnick, S. and Garcia-Gonzalez, F. 2002. Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 269: 1821–1828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitnick, S. and Markow, T.A. 1994. Male gametic strategies: sperm size, testes size, and the allocation of ejaculate among successive mates by the sperm-limited fly Drosophila pachea and its relatives. American Naturalist, 143: 785–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Promislow, D.E.L., Smith, E.A., and Pearse, L. 1998. Adult fitness consequences of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 95: 10687–10692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratterman, N.L., Rosenthal, G.G., Carney, G.E., and Jones, A.G. 2014. Genetic variation and covariation in male attractiveness and female mating preferences in Drosophila melanogaster. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, 4: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raubenheimer, D. and Simpson, S.J. 2003. Nutrient balancing in grasshoppers: behavioural and physiological correlates of dietary breadth. Journal of Experimental Biology, 206: 1669–1681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renkema, J.M., Wright, D., Buitenhuis, R., and Hallett, R.H. 2016. Plant essential oils and potassium metabisulfite as repellents for Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Science Report, 6: 21432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revadi, S., Lebreton, S., Witzgall, P., Anfora, G., Dekker, T., and Becher, P.G. 2015. Sexual behavior of Drosophila suzukii. Insects, 6: 183–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, J.D. and Gross, M.R. 1992. Female mate preference enhances offspring growth and reproduction in a fish, Poecilia reticulata. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 250: 57–62.Google Scholar
Ringo, J., Sharon, G., and Segal, D. 2011. Bacteria-induced sexual isolation in Drosophila. Fly, 5: 310–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodrigues, M.A., Martins, N.E., Balance, L.F., Broom, L.N., Dias, A.J.S., Fernandes, A.S.D., et al. 2016. Drosophila melanogaster larvae make nutritional choices that minimize developmental time. Journal of Insect Physiology, 81: 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M.R. 1984. Laboratory evolution of postponed senescence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution, 38: 1004–1010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, K.K. and Altmann, J. 2001. Selection for male choice based primarily on mate compatibility in the old field mouse, Peromyscus polionotus rhoadsi. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50: 436–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheirer, C.J., Ray, W.S., and Hare, N. 1976. The analysis of ranked data derived from completely randomized factorial designs. Biometrics, 32: 429–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schultzhaus, J.N., Nixon, J.J., Duran, J.A., and Carney, G.E. 2017. Diet alters Drosophila melanogaster mate preference and attractiveness. Animal Behaviour, 123: 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackleton, M.A., Jennions, M.D., and Hunt, J., 2005. Fighting success and attractiveness as predictors of male mating success in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus: the effectiveness of no-choice tests. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 58: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharon, G., Segal, D., Ringo, J.M., Hefetz, A., Zilber-Rosenberg, I., Rosenberg, E. and Collier, R.J. 2010. Commensal bacteria play a role in mating preference of Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107: 20051–20056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva-Soares, N.F., Nogueira-Alves, A., Beldade, P., and Mirth, C.K. 2017. Adaptation to new nutritional environments: larval performance, foraging decisions, and adult oviposition choices in Drosophila suzukii. BMC Ecology, 17: 21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, L.W. 1987. Female choice contributes to offspring fitness in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 21: 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snellings, Y., Herrera, B., Wildemann, B., Beelen, M., Zwarts, L., Wenseleers, T., and Callaerts, P. 2018. The role of cuticular hydrocarbons in mate recognition in Drosophila suzukii. Scientific Report, 8: 4996.Google Scholar
Sullivan, W., Ashburner, M., and Hawley, R.S. 2000. Drosophila protocols. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, United States of America.Google Scholar
Tennant, H.M.E, Sonser, E., and Long, T.A.F. 2014. Hemiclonal analysis of interacting phenotypes in male and female Drosophila melanogaster. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 14: 95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, D.B., Bolda, M.P., Goodhue, R.E., Dreves, A.J., Lee, J., Bruck, D.J., et al. 2011. Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae): invasive pest of ripening soft fruit expanding its geographic range and damage potential. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2: G1–G7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherhead, P.J. and Robertson, R.J. 1981. In defense of the “sexy son” hypothesis. American Naturist, 117: 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigby, S., Perry, J.C., Kim, Y.H., and Sirot, L.K. 2015. Developmental environment mediates male seminal protein investment in Drosophila melanogaster. Functional Ecology, 30: 410–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, Y., Buckiewicz, N., and Long, T.A.F. 2018. Nutritional geometry and fitness consequences in Drosophila suzukii, the spotted-wing drosophila. Ecology and Evolution, 8: 2842–2851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed