Oviposition preferences for ethanol depend on spatial arrangement and differ dramatically among closely related Drosophila species.
Recent work on the model fly Drosophila melanogaster has reported inconsistencies in their preference for laying eggs on intermediate concentrations of ethanol. In this study, we resolve this discrepancy by showing that this species strongly prefers ovipositing on ethanol when it is close to a non-ethanol substrate, but strongly avoids ethanol when options are farther apart. We also show fluidity of these behaviors among other Drosophila species: D. melanogaster is more responsive to ethanol than close relatives in that it prefers ethanol more than other species in the close-proximity case, but avoids ethanol more than other species in the distant case. In the close-proximity scenario, the more ethanol-tolerant species generally prefer ethanol more, with the exception of the island endemic D. santomea This species has the lowest tolerance in the clade, but behaves like D. melanogaster We speculate that this could be an adaptation to protect eggs from parasites or predators such as parasitoid wasps, as larvae migrate to non-toxic substrates after hatching. These natural differences among species are an excellent opportunity to study how genes and brains evolve to alter ethanol preferences, and provide an interesting model for genetic variation in preferences in other organisms, including humans.
Ecological Biology, 9620 UC Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-00 m.sumethasorn@gmail.com.
Matt
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2702-119X
M
Sumethasorn
Ecological Biology, 9620 UC Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-00.
Thomas L
TL
Turner
Behavior; Decision making; Evolution
Behav Genet. 1999 May;29(3):199-204
10547927
Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Aug 7;267(1452):1487-95
11007323
Behav Genet. 1979 May;9(3):233-41
115458
Evolution. 2002 Nov;56(11):2262-77
12487356
Genetica. 2004 Mar;120(1-3):17-39
15088644
Cell. 2005 Jun 3;121(5):795-807
15935765
J Exp Biol. 2006 Oct;209(Pt 19):3837-50
16985200
Science. 2008 Mar 21;319(5870):1679-83
18356529
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Mar 1;88(5):1835-9
1900368
Evolution. 2009 Mar;63(3):595-612
19087181
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jul 7;106(27):11352-7
19541615
Chem Senses. 2010 Nov;35(9):813-22
20739429
PLoS One. 2011 Jan 20;6(1):e16436
21283727
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Feb 7;109(6):2049-53
22308337
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37910
22693584
Genetics. 2012 Oct;192(2):521-32
22798487
Genet Sel Evol. 1986;18(4):405-16
22879258
Science. 2013 Feb 22;339(6122):947-50
23430653
Nat Rev Genet. 2013 Nov;14(11):751-64
24105273
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Dec 24;110(52):21153-8
24324162
Cell Rep. 2014 Oct 23;9(2):522-30
25373900
Curr Biol. 2014 Dec 1;24(23):2797-804
25455037
Genetics. 2015 Apr;199(4):1229-41
25631317
Oecologia. 1972 Dec;10(4):373-388
28307067
Oecologia. 1983 Jun;58(3):320-325
28310329
Evolution. 1997 Aug;51(4):1175-1181
28565503
Evolution. 1994 Jun;48(3):746-757
28568255
Entomol Exp Appl. 2015 Apr;155(1):64-70
29398715
Trends Genet. 1988 Apr;4(4):106-11
3149056
Annu Rev Entomol. 1974;19:385-405
4205689
Genetics. 1974 Jun;77(2):385-94
4211152
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Mar 28;92(7):2519-23
7708677
Cell. 1996 Dec 13;87(6):1079-89
8978612
Behav Genet. 1997 May;27(3):171-80
9210788