2020:groups:g5:start
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
2020:groups:g5:start [2020/01/10 15:40] – [References] sudbrack | 2020:groups:g5:start [2024/01/09 18:45] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
**Group 5** | **Group 5** | ||
- | < | + | < |
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
{{:: | {{:: | ||
- | Invasions | + | Infestations |
- | Twelve different biotypes of whitefly have already been distinguished through | + | Twelve different biotypes of whitefly have already been distinguished through |
- | + | ||
- | Interestingly, | + | |
Liu //et al.// detected significant changes in sex ratio in both the indigenous and alien populations in both regions. In China, when populations of either B or ZHJ1 occurred alone, B usually had female | Liu //et al.// detected significant changes in sex ratio in both the indigenous and alien populations in both regions. In China, when populations of either B or ZHJ1 occurred alone, B usually had female | ||
- | ratios of 60~70%, which were higher than the 50~60% female ratios in ZHJ1. Very similar results also happened to AN biotype. This difference was even higher when the two different biotypes coexisted during the invasions. Then, the same group, | + | ratios of 60~70%, which were higher than the 50~60% female ratios in ZHJ1. Very similar results also happened to AN biotype. This difference was even higher when the two different biotypes coexisted during the infestations. Then, the same researchers |
- | Scientists noticed some interference behavior in whiteflies was acting as a mechanism to change sex ratios within biotypes. Although identification of the progeny produced using nuclear DNA markers detected no hybrids, demonstrating reproductive isolation | + | Interestingly, mating experiments |
- | production of female progeny by increasing its frequency | + | |
- | This manipulation happened when two males from different biotypes and a female | + | |
- | The most significant changes occur in the following scenarios (data from Supporting Online Material | + | This manipulation happens, literally, as a third wheel - the different biotype is able to court the female, but not to copulate with her. Moreover, copulation by indigenous individuals is partly blocked by B males that readily attempt to court with females |
- | * (B♂)(B♀): | ||
- | * (B♂)(B♀)(B♂): | ||
- | * (B♂)(B♀)(Z♂): | ||
- | * (Z♂)(Z♀): | + | ===== Assignment ===== |
- | * (Z♂)(Z♀)(B♂): | + | |
- | * (Z♂)(Z♀)(Z♂): | + | |
- | Similar behavior to data occurred with B and AN biotypes, although numbers changed. Moreover, copulation by indigenous individuals is partly blocked by B males that readily attempt | + | Propose |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | ===== Assignment ===== | + | |
- | Propose a mathematical model at the level of populations to investigate the strategy of changing copulation frequency in whiteflies biotypes, the possible mechanism discussed above. | + | ===== Suggested questions |
- | + | ||
- | ===== Questions & Suggestions | + | |
- | - Can these mating observations alone help to explain the B biotype’s capacity to invade and displace indigenous populations? | + | - Which conditions of frequency of copulation ensures |
+ | - Which conditions verify the sex ratio shifts, given this mating behavior and the fact that whiteflies are haplodiploid? | ||
+ | Further well-grounded questions from the group are welcome. | ||
===== References ===== | ===== References ===== |
2020/groups/g5/start.1578670841.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/01/09 18:45 (external edit)