Natural and Sexual Selection of Vestigial and Wild Type Drosophila Melanogaster
Natural and Sexual Selection of Vestigial and Wild Type Drosophila melanogaster
Abstract
In this experiment, vestigial flies as well as wild type flies were used to create some diversity as well as test one of our hypotheses. Our hypotheses are as follows; 1) The wild type flies will have a greater relative fitness compared to the vestigial flies based on only sexual selection. The wild type has a relative fitness of 1 since it has fully functional wings. Vestigial Winged flies are not as sexually appealing since their wings are not functional and the wing movement is a vital part of their mating ritual. 2) The vestigial fly will have a greater relative fitness when considering both sexual and natural selection. With the presence of natural selection (fly paper hanging from top of cage) posing a larger threat to the wild flies b/c they can fly better, this will allow vestigial flies to prosper better. To set up this experiment, two twenty-five gallon aquariums, 3 petri-dishes, 200 flies, rotten bananas, and yeast were used. It was decided that there would be 80 vestigial flies and 20 wild type flies to total to an initial population of 100 drosophila. In the sexual selection circumstance, the vestigial drosophila’s carrying capacity is somewhere around 80 individuals, which is consistent with the wild type drosophila’s carrying capacity in this circumstance (Figure 4). In the sexual and natural selection circumstance the wild type drosophila have a carrying capacity at approximately 100 individuals (Figure 5). As both of the p-values from each circumstances in our experiment are greater than 0.05, both hypotheses must be refuted.
Introduction
This experiment focuses specifically on Drosophila melanogaster, also known as the common fruit fly (Lynch, M., et al. pp 645-663). For over 100 years scientists have been using them in experiments as they are referred to as a “model organism.” They were deemed a “model organism” since they are characterized as
Abstract
In this experiment, vestigial flies as well as wild type flies were used to create some diversity as well as test one of our hypotheses. Our hypotheses are as follows; 1) The wild type flies will have a greater relative fitness compared to the vestigial flies based on only sexual selection. The wild type has a relative fitness of 1 since it has fully functional wings. Vestigial Winged flies are not as sexually appealing since their wings are not functional and the wing movement is a vital part of their mating ritual. 2) The vestigial fly will have a greater relative fitness when considering both sexual and natural selection. With the presence of natural selection (fly paper hanging from top of cage) posing a larger threat to the wild flies b/c they can fly better, this will allow vestigial flies to prosper better. To set up this experiment, two twenty-five gallon aquariums, 3 petri-dishes, 200 flies, rotten bananas, and yeast were used. It was decided that there would be 80 vestigial flies and 20 wild type flies to total to an initial population of 100 drosophila. In the sexual selection circumstance, the vestigial drosophila’s carrying capacity is somewhere around 80 individuals, which is consistent with the wild type drosophila’s carrying capacity in this circumstance (Figure 4). In the sexual and natural selection circumstance the wild type drosophila have a carrying capacity at approximately 100 individuals (Figure 5). As both of the p-values from each circumstances in our experiment are greater than 0.05, both hypotheses must be refuted.
Introduction
This experiment focuses specifically on Drosophila melanogaster, also known as the common fruit fly (Lynch, M., et al. pp 645-663). For over 100 years scientists have been using them in experiments as they are referred to as a “model organism.” They were deemed a “model organism” since they are characterized as
References: Hall, Jeffrey C. Jun 1994. The Mating of a Fly. Science 264 No. 5166: pp 1702-1714. Lynch, M., J. Blanchard, Houle, D., T. Kibota, Shultz, S., L. Vassilieva, Willis, J. Perspective: Spontaneous Deleterious Mutation. Evolution 53 No. 3: pp 645-663. Stowe, K. A., L. L. Hester, and Vieyra, M. L. 2008. Biology 101 Lab Manual. Hayden- McNeil Publishing Inc., Plymouth, Michigan, USA.