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

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 Folk, D. G. Articles by Bradley, T. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Folk, D. G. Articles by Bradley, T. J.

Water acquisition and partitioning in Drosophila melanogaster: effects of selection for desiccation-resistance

Donna G. Folk^*, Christine Han and Timothy J. Bradley

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2525, USA

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Comparison of wet and dry masses of desiccation-selected flies (D flies) and their controls (C flies) at four phases of development. Values are means of five populations from either the C or D selection treatments ± S.E.M. The asterisk denotes a significant difference between the C and D flies, which was observed only in wet mass at 4 days post-eclosion (P<0.001).

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Comparison of percentage body water content of desiccation-selected flies (D flies) and their controls (C flies) at five phases of development. Values are means of five populations from either the C or D selection treatments ± S.E.M. The asterisk denotes a significant difference between the C and D flies in percentage body water, which was observed only at 4 days post-eclosion (P<0.001).

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Total body water volume measured at 10 min, 1 h, 2 h and 4 h following eclosion. The slopes of the regressions were not significantly different from zero for either the C flies (P=0.36) or the D flies (P=0.98). Values are means ± S.E.M. of five populations from either the C or D selection treatments.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Only a weak relationship was observed between survival during desiccation and intracellular water volume (r2=0.34, P=0.054). Each filled circle represents the mean (± S.E.M.) from one of the five D populations, while each open circle represents the mean (± S.E.M.) from one of the five C populations (N=10 flies per population).

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. A strong relationship was observed between survival during desiccation and hemolymph volume (r2=0.85, P=0.0002). Each filled circle represents the mean value (± S.E.M.) from one of the five D populations, while each open circle represents the mean (± S.E.M.) value from one of the five C populations (N=10 flies per population). Hemolymph data were log-transformed prior to statistical analyses.

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Comparison of carbohydrate level adjusted for total dry mass between C and D populations at 4 days post-eclosion. Values are means ± S.E.M. of five populations from either the C or D selection treatments. The asterisk denotes a significant difference between the C and D flies in carbohydrate content (P=0.02).

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. The relationship between mean survival during desiccation and mean carbohydrate content adjusted for total dry mass (r2=0.77, P=0.032). Each point is the mean value (± S.E.M.) from one of the five desiccation-selected populations (N=10).