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

First published online June 13, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 2116-2122 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.019422

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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Frazier, M. R. Articles by Roberts, S. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Frazier, M. R. Articles by Roberts, S. P. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Cold rearing improves cold-flight performance in Drosophila via changes in wing morphology

Melanie R. Frazier^1,*, Jon F. Harrison², Scott D. Kirkton³ and Stephen P. Roberts⁴

¹ Department of Biology Box 351800, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1800, USA
² School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501. USA
³ Department of Biological Sciences, Union College, Schenectady, NY 12308, USA
⁴ School of Life Sciences, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-4004, USA

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Effects of test temperature (Ttest) and development temperature (Tdev) on flight performance of D. melanogaster. Green indicates the proportion of flies that were able to perform a flight, yellow indicates lift generation (but not flight), red indicates flight failure (see Materials and methods for details). Flies that developed in colder temperatures had significantly better flight performance in colder temperatures (see Table 1), indicating beneficial plasticity.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Effects of body mass, development temperature and gender (females, filled symbols; males, open symbols) on (A) wing area and (B) wing loading of D. melanogaster. When wing loading was compared within a single developmental temperature (Tdev: 15°C, blue triangles; 23°C, orange circles, 28°C, red squares) larger flies had greater wing loading. However, this scaling relationship was dramatically altered when variation in wing area and body size was due to development temperature. Flies from colder temperatures had much lower wing loading (black lines indicate relationships across developmental temperatures). The black circles indicate mean body mass and wing area/loading for each treatment group.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Wing-beat frequency (WBF; s–1) of D. melanogaster as a function of flight temperature (Ttest, °C), developmental temperature (Tdev, °C), body mass (A) and wing area (B). As test temperature increased, wing-beat frequency significantly increased (plots from left to right). Flies developing at cold temperatures (blue triangles, 15°C) had significantly lower wing-beat frequencies at every test temperature compared with flies developing at intermediate temperatures (orange circles, 23°C) or warmer temperatures (red squares, 28°C). Males (open symbols) and females (filled symbols) did not have significantly different WBFs after controlling for wing area and body size. Heavier flies tended to have faster WBFs (A; Table 2D), and flies with larger wings had slower WBFs (B; Table 2D) after statistically controlling for Tdev and Ttest.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter