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 21:59] – [Questions & Suggestions] prado | 2020:groups:g5:start [2024/01/09 18:45] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
{{:: | {{:: | ||
- | Invasions | + | Infestations |
- | Twelve different biotypes of whitefly have already been distinguished through phylogenetic analysis. One of these biotypes, referred to as 'B biotype', | + | Twelve different biotypes of whitefly have already been distinguished through phylogenetic analysis. One of these biotypes, referred to as 'B biotype', |
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 decided to reproduce this behavior in controlled environments. Their results included a B biotype domination in mixed cohorts: "The relative proportion of B increased steadily with time and had totally supplanted ZHJ1 after 225 days." And also, it reproduces the data of sex ratios | + | 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 of Liu //et al//): | + | 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 of either biotype — a behavior not reciprocated by the indigenous males. |
- | + | ||
- | * (B♂)(B♀): | + | |
- | * (B♂)(B♀)(B♂): | + | |
- | * (B♂)(B♀)(Z♂): | + | |
- | + | ||
- | * (Z♂)(Z♀): | + | |
- | * (Z♂)(Z♀)(B♂): | + | |
- | * (Z♂)(Z♀)(Z♂): | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Similar behavior | + | |
Line 43: | Line 31: | ||
Propose and analyze a mathematical model for whitefly populations to investigate the strategy of changing copulation frequency in whiteflies biotypes. | Propose and analyze a mathematical model for whitefly populations to investigate the strategy of changing copulation frequency in whiteflies biotypes. | ||
- | + | ||
===== Suggested questions ===== | ===== Suggested questions ===== | ||
- | - Can these mating observations alone help explain | + | - Which conditions of frequency of copulation ensures |
- | - Can your model account for the sex ratio shifts, given this mating | + | - Which conditions verify |
Further well-grounded questions from the group are welcome. | Further well-grounded questions from the group are welcome. |
2020/groups/g5/start.1578693543.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/01/09 18:45 (external edit)