Comparing single- and mixed-species groups in fruit flies: differences in group dynamics, but not group formation
Comparing single- and mixed-species groups in fruit flies: differences in group dynamics, but not group formation
复制标题
比较果蝇中的单一物种和混合物种群体：群体动态的差异，但群体形成的差异
DOI：
10.1093/jhered/esab041
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Saltz, Julia B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Girardeau, Anna R;Foley, Brad R;Saltz, Julia B
混合物种组描述了在同一营养级上两个或两个以上物种的个体之间的积极联系。混合物种群体对关键的生态和进化过程（如竞争和捕食）非常重要，忽视其他物种存在的研究可能会忽视社会行为表达和选择的环境的一个关键方面。尽管混合物种群体的积极形成的定义强调，令人惊讶的是，很少有人知道混合物种群体的形成机制。此外，昆虫几乎完全被忽视的混合物种群体的研究，尽管他们的分类学的重要性和相对突出的研究单物种群体。在这里，我们测量了黑腹果蝇和它的姊妹种果蝇的群体形成过程。每个物种单独研究，并在一起，和一个种群的D。还对黑腹素单独进行了研究，并与另一种表型不同的D进行了研究。黑腹鼠种群，在巢式析因设计。这种方法不同于典型的研究混合物种群体的方法，因为我们可以定量地比较单种群，混合种群和混合物种处理之间的群体形成。令人惊讶的是，我们发现在形成的群体的数量，大小或组成的治疗之间没有差异，这表明单一和混合物种群体通过类似的主动吸引机制形成。然而，我们发现，混合物种组表现出升高的种间雄性-雄性相互作用，相对于种群间或基因型间的相互作用，在单一物种组。我们的研究结果扩展了混合物种群体的概念和分类学研究，同时广泛地提出了有关群体形成机制的新问题。
Mixed-species groups describe active associations among individuals of 2 or more species at the same trophic level. Mixed-species groups are important to key ecological and evolutionary processes such as competition and predation, and research that ignores the presence of other species risks ignoring a key aspect of the environment in which social behavior is expressed and selected. Despite the defining emphasis of active formation for mixed-species groups, surprisingly little is known about the mechanisms by which mixed-species groups form. Furthermore, insects have been almost completely ignored in the study of mixed-species groups, despite their taxonomic importance and relative prominence in the study of single-species groups. Here, we measured group formation processes inDrosophila melanogasterand its sister species,Drosophila simulans. Each species was studied alone, and together, and one population ofD. melanogasterwas also studied both alone and with another, phenotypically distinctD. melanogasterpopulation, in a nested-factorial design. This approach differs from typical methods of studying mixed-species groups in that we could quantitatively compare group formation between single-population, mixed-population, and mixed-species treatments. Surprisingly, we found no differences between treatments in the number, size, or composition of groups that formed, suggesting that single- and mixed-species groups form through similar mechanisms of active attraction. However, we found that mixed-species groups showed elevated interspecies male–male interactions, relative to interpopulation or intergenotype interactions in single-species groups. Our findings expand the conceptual and taxonomic study of mixed-species groups while raising new questions about the mechanisms of group formation broadly.