QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online August 9, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 2897-2904 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.007591

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dillon, M. E. Articles by Huey, R. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dillon, M. E. Articles by Huey, R. B. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Life history consequences of temperature transients in Drosophila melanogaster

Michael E. Dillon^1,*, Liza R. Y. Cahn² and Raymond B. Huey¹

¹ Department of Biology, Box 351800, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1800, USA
² Department of Biology, Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA 99362, USA

View larger version (7K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Hypotheses for the effects of thermal transients on fly fitness. See text for descriptions of hypotheses.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Daily fecundity for constant (A) and transient (B) temperature treatments. The mean total number of eggs laid by a female varied with constant temperature treatment (A, inset; different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatment groups from Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons). For the transient treatment groups (B), flies were kept at 25°C except for either 1 or 3 days at 18°C or 1 day at 29°C. The transient temperature data is presented as the percent difference from the control group maintained at constant 25°C. Each point is the mean ± s.e.m. from 15 females (range 13–17) per temperature per day, and points are slightly offset to make error bars visible. P-values from Kruskal–Wallis rank sum tests for each day are shown below each plot; values in bold type are significant at the P=0.05 level. Flies were 3–4 days old on day 1.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Daily egg-to-adult viability (proportion of eggs laid that emerged) for flies experiencing constant (A) and transient (B) temperatures. In B, egg-to-adult viability is shown as the difference between treatment viability and viability at constant 25°C on the same day. Flies were kept at 25°C except for 1 day at 18°C or 29°C and 3 days at 18°C. P values from Kruskal–Wallis rank sum tests for each day are shown below each plot; values in bold are significant at P=0.05 level.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Development times of progeny from adult flies exposed to constant (A) and transient temperature treatments (B). Included in B are control flies held at constant 25°C for the duration of the experiment (circles, thin solid line), flies that experienced 25°C except for 1 day at 18°C (squares, dot-dash line) or 29°C (triangles, dotted line) or 3 days at 18°C (diamonds, broken line). P values from Kruskal–Wallis rank sum tests are shown below plot B; values in bold are significant at P=0.05 level.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter