Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:07:37.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection for larval growth in Tribolium under two levels of nutrition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Yukio Yamada  and
A. E. Bell
Yukio Yamada
Affiliation:
Population Genetics Institute, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, U.S.A.47907
A. E. Bell
Affiliation:
Population Genetics Institute, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, U.S.A.47907
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Selection for large and small 13-day larval weight in Tribolium castaneum was studied for sixteen generations in a replicated experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of various selection methods and the importance of genotype by environment interactions under two levels of nutrition.

Direct selection responses generally were larger than correlated ones under both Good and Poor nutritional environments. However, contrary to theoretical expectations, those populations selected on average performance in both environments were not superior for this attribute.

Asymmetrical responses were observed to be dependent on the environment of selection. When selection was based on performance in the optimal environment, the asymmetry was observed toward small size. This situation in the sub – optimal environment was completely reversed. This phenomenon was discussed in terms of physiological limits rather than gene frequency and directional dominance.

It was proposed that selection of compound traits such as body weight at a fixed age may affect the component characters quite differently. As the latter are differentiated by direction and environment of selection, the compound trait may reflect parametric changes and enhanced genotype by environment interactions. Such changes hamper the precision of current selection theory for predicting response even in the short run.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 1969 , pp. 175 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

References

REFERENCES

Bray, D. F., Bell, A. E. & King, S. C. (1962). The importance of genotype by environment interaction with reference to control populations. Genet. Res. 3, 282–302.Google Scholar
Costantino, R. F., Bell, A. E. & Rogler, J. C. (1966). Genetic control of lipid metabolism in Tribolium. Nature, Lond. 210, 221–222.Google Scholar
Druger, M. (1962). Selection and body size in Drosophila psuedoobscura at different temperatures. Genetics 47, 209–222.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960 a). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960 b). Selection of mice for growth on high and low planes of nutrition. Genet. Res. 1, 91–113.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. & Latyszewski, M. (1952). The environment in relation to selection for size in mice. J. Genet. 51, 67–80.Google Scholar
Fowler, S. S. & Ensminger, M. E. (1960). Interactions between genotype and plane of nutrition in selection for rate of gain in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 19, 434–449.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1947). Animal breeding in relation to nutrition and environmental conditions. Biol. Rev. 22, 195–213.Google Scholar
Hardin, R. T. & Bell, A. E. (1967). Two-way selection for body weight in Tribolium on two levels of nutrition. Genet. Res. 9, 309–330.Google Scholar
Hardin, R. T., Rogler, J. C. & Bell, A. E. (1967). Genetic and environmental interactions in growth of Tribolium castaneum. Can. J. Zool. 47, 139–144.Google Scholar
James, J. W. (1961). Selection in two environments. Heredity 16, 145–152.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L. (1945). Animal Breeding Plans, 3rd ed.Ames: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
McBride, G. (1959). The environment and animal breeding problems. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 26, 349–358.Google Scholar
McNary, H. W. & Bell, A. E. (1962). The effect of environment on response to selection for body weight in Tribolium castaneum. (Abstr.) Genetics 47, 969–70.Google Scholar
Parsons, P. S. (1959). Genotypic environmental interactions for various temperatures in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetice 44, 1325–1333.Google Scholar
Robertson, Alan (1959). The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15, 469–485.Google Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1959). Gene-environment interaction in relation to the nutrition and growth of Drosophila. Biological Contributions, The University of Texas, Austin: Fall 1959, publ. no. 5914.Google Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1960). The ecological genetics of growth in Drosophila. 1. Body size and developmental time on different diets. Genet. Res. 1, 288–304.Google Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1963). The ecological genetics of growth in Drosophila. 6. The genetic correlation between the duration of the larval period and body size in relation to larval diet. Genet. Res. 4, 74–92.Google Scholar
StTaylor, C. C. (1965). A relation between mature weight and time taken to mature in mammals. Anim. Prod. 7, 203–220.Google Scholar
Yamada, Yukio. (1962). Genotype by environment interaction and genetic correlation of the same trait under different environments. Jap. J. Genet. 37, 498–509.Google Scholar