Data from: Socially plastic responses in females are robust to evolutionary manipulations of adult sex ratio and adult nutrition
Data files
Sep 30, 2024 version files 127.95 KB
-
README.md
6.01 KB
-
SREXPdata1.csv
93.96 KB
-
SREXPdata2.csv
27.98 KB
Abstract
Socially plastic behaviours are widespread among animals and can have a significant impact on fitness. Here we investigated whether the socially plastic responses of female Drosophila melanogaster can evolve in predictable ways following long term manipulation of adult sex ratio and adult nutrient availability. Previous reports show that female D. melanogaster respond plastically to their same-sex social environment, and lay significantly fewer eggs after mating when previously exposed to other females. In this study, we tested two hypotheses, using females drawn from lines with an evolutionary history of exposure to variation in adult sex ratio (male biased, female biased, or equal sex ratio) and adult nutritional environment (high or low quality). The first was that a history of elevated competition in female-biased regimes would select for increased plastic fecundity responses in comparison to females from other lines. The second was that these responses would also be magnified under poor nutritional resource regimes. Neither hypothesis was supported. Instead, we found that plastic fecundity responses were retained in females from all lines, and did not differ significantly across any of them. The lack of differences does not appear to be due to insufficient selection, as we did observe significant evolutionary responses in virgin egg laying patterns according to sex ratio and nutritional regime. The lack of variation in the magnitude of predicted plasticity is consistent with the idea that the costs of maintaining plasticity are low, benefits high, and that plasticity itself can be relatively hard-wired.
J Evolutionary Biology (2024). Authors: McConnell N, Haerty W, Gage MJG, Chapman T
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.qbzkh18s6
SREXPdata1:
The mating duration, mating latency and number of offspring of female Drosophila melanogaster experimentally evolved under fixed adult sex ratio that was either male-biased (MB), equal (EQ) or female-biased (FB), and either a standard (100 % of standard diet yeast) or poor (20% of standard diet yeast) dietary regime. Females were exposed to 3 conspecific rival females for 3 days before mating (G) or housed alone (A). All rival females and males mated to the focal females were wildtype.
SREXPdata1 contains the following data columns:
Population: Label for evolutionary regime, replicate and food type; male-biased (MB), equal (EQ) or female-biased (FB) ; Low nutrition (20) High nutrition (100), replicate 1,2 or 3 |
---|
code: Label for evolutionary regime, replicate and food type; male-biased (MB), equal (EQ) or female-biased (FB) ; Low nutrition (20) High nutrition (100), and social treatment |
Sex.Ratio: Label for sex ratio either male-biased (MB), equal (EQ) or female-biased (FB) |
Food: Label for Low nutrition (20% of standard) High nutrition (100% of standard) |
Social: treatment of the focal female either alone (A) or group housed with three non-focal females for 3 days before mating (G) |
Start: Time when the focal female was introduced to the wildtype male (GMT) |
Mating: Start of mating between male and female (note: only matings longer than 6min were used) (GMT) |
End: time when mating ceased (GMT) |
Latency: Time between introduction to male and beginning of mating (mins) |
Duration: length of time the mating lasted (mins) |
loglat: Latency time converted using Log10 function |
logdur: Duration time converted using Log10 function |
Eggs: number of eggs produced by focal female in the 24h post mating |
progeny: number of eggs that successfully developed into adult flies |
Egg.viability: percentage of eggs that successfully developed to adult flies |
SREXPdata2:
The virgin egg counts of female Drosophila melanogaster experimentally evolved under fixed adult sex ratio that was either male-biased (MB), equal (EQ) or female-biased (FB), and either a standard (100% of standard diet yeast) or poor (20% of standard diet yeast) dietary regime. Females were exposed to 3 conspecific rival females for 3 days before mating (G) or housed alone (A). All rival females and males mated to the focal females were wildtype.
SREXPdata2 contains the following data columns:
Population: Label for evolutionary regime, replicate and food type; male-biased (MB), equal (EQ) or female-biased (FB) ; Low nutrition (20) High nutrition (100), replicate 1,2 or 3 |
---|
code: Label for evolutionary regime, replicate and food type; male-biased (MB), equal (EQ) or female-biased (FB) ; Low nutrition (20) High nutrition (100), and social treatment |
Sex.Ratio: Label for sex ratio either male-biased (MB), equal (EQ) or female-biased (FB) |
Food: Label for Low nutrition (20) High nutrition (100) |
Social: treatment of the focal female either alone (A) or housed with three non-focal females for 3 days before mating (G) |
VirginEggs: Number of eggs the focal female laid over the three days prior to mating (note: for G females the number of eggs was divided by 4) |
Description of the data and file structure
Design is fully balanced. Missing values = N/A
Sharing/Access information
Data collected as described in the linked paper. Nor derived from any additional sources.
Code/Software
Analysis codes and software are given in the Supplementary Information of the linked paper.
Dataset collected as described in the methods. Processing according to the statistical pipelines described. All statistical analysis was performed using R Core team V-4.0.2 (2020 2020). All three replicates were analysed simultaneously, with the replicates (‘Population’) designated as a random factor. The Shapiro-Wilk test, Q-Q plots, and histograms were used to check data were normally distributed and the Levene’s test to check the homogeneity of variances across treatments. Analysis of egg number and progeny were analysed using linear mixed effects models from the lme4 package (Bates et al. 2015) and Chi-squared test were used to drop non-significant terms (supplementary material). Mating latency and duration were also analysed using the same method after being log10 transformed. To analyse differences between group treatments, a Tukey post hoc analysis was conducted using the ‘emmeans’ package (Lenth 2022). Additionally, a Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Model (GLMER) with a Poisson error distribution, and a negative binomial GLMER were used to check model fit versus the LMER. The GLMER with poisson structure did not fit the data well, whilst the negative binomial reported similar results to the LMER. Models were compared using Log-likelihood, Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) and residual plots. The data were initially analysed using the whole dataset. In subsequent analyses, zero egg counts were removed to allow the data for the egg laying and non egg laying females to be analysed separately, using a binomial generalised linear mixed model. For virgin egg data, it was not distinguish between the eggs laid by focal and non-focal females in the grouped treatments. Therefore, we analysed the virgin egg count data separately for alone and grouped treatments.