Abstract
By analyzing isofemale strains extracted from a natural population of Nasonia vitripennis, we detected variation for the sex ratios produced in fresh hosts (first sex ratios) and in previously parasitized hosts (second sex ratios). Under simple assumptions of population structure, this between-strain heterogeneity of first sex ratios results in heterogeneity of fitnesses. There is approximately ten percent difference in average fitnesses between the strains. (The fitnesses of second sex ratios are analyzed in the accompanying paper.) Average first and average second sex ratios are uncorrelated. There is significant between-female heterogeneity within some strains for first sex ratios but not for second sex ratios. In addition, the average direct-developing and diapause first sex ratios (but not second sex ratios) are significantly correlated. There are significant correlations between the direct-developing and diapause sex ratios produced by the same female. The strains differ in their effects on the sex ratio and size of another female's brood in the same host. Data on these types of variation for sex ratio traits are essential for further progress in the study of sex ratio evolution.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.1 MB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Orzack S. H. The comparative biology of second sex ratio evolution within a natural population of a parasitic wasp, Nasonia vitripennis. Genetics. 1990 Feb;124(2):385–396. doi: 10.1093/genetics/124.2.385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taylor P. D., Bulmer M. G. Local male competition and the sex ratio. J Theor Biol. 1980 Oct 7;86(3):409–419. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(80)90342-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Uyenoyama M. K., Bengtsson B. O. Towards a genetic theory for the evolution of the sex ratio. III. Parental and sibling control of brood investment ratio under partial sib-mating. Theor Popul Biol. 1982 Aug;22(1):43–68. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(82)90035-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]