The effect of genetic and environmental variation on genital size in male drosophila: Canalized but developmentally unstable
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 6, Issue: 12, Page: e28278
2011
- 22Citations
- 52Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations22
- Citation Indexes22
- CrossRef22
- 19
- Captures52
- Readers52
- 52
Article Description
The genitalia of most male arthropods scale hypoallometrically with body size, that is they are more or less the same size across large and small individuals in a population. Such scaling is expected to arise when genital traits show less variation than somatic traits in response to factors that generate size variation among individuals in a population. Nevertheless, there have been few studies directly examining the relative sensitivity of genital and somatic traits to factors that affect their size. Such studies are key to understanding genital evolution and the evolution of morphological scaling relationships more generally. Previous studies indicate that the size of genital traits in male Drosophila melanogaster show a relatively low response to variation in environmental factors that affect trait size. Here we show that the size of genital traits in male fruit flies also exhibit a relatively low response to variation in genetic factors that affect trait size. Importantly, however, this low response is only to genetic factors that affect body and organ size systemically, not those that affect organ size autonomously. Further, we show that the genital traits do not show low levels of developmental instability, which is the response to stochastic developmental errors that also influence organ size autonomously. We discuss these results in the context of current hypotheses on the proximate and ultimate mechanisms that generate genital hypoallometry. © 2011 Dreyer, Shingleton.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=82955201619&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22174784; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278.g001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028278.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028278.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028278; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028278; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028278&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028278; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028278&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028278.g001
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know