The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolutionary Responses of the Life History of Wild‐Caught Drosophila melanogaster to Two Standard Methods of Laboratory Culture
Abstract
Genetic adaptation of wild populations to captivity can be a problem for studies of evolution and for programs of conservation and biological control. We examine how the life history of Drosophila melanogaster, the most commonly used organism for laboratory studies of evolution, evolves in response to two common methods of laboratory culture: in bottles and in population cages. We collected flies at the same site in nature at the same time of year in three consecutive years and compared freshly collected populations from the third collection with the products of 1 or 2 yr's laboratory culture, in a replicated experimental design. Preadult development time increased in the laboratory, particularly in cage culture. There was also an increase in larval competitive ability in both types of culture. Body size was little affected, increasing slightly and only in the bottle culture. Early fecundity increased in bottle culture, while late fecundity declined. Adult mortality rates were lowest in the fresh collections and showed a marked and progressive increase in bottle culture with a slight increase in population cage culture and apparently only in the first year of culture. Remating frequency increased in bottle but not cage culture. These evolutionary changes are most likely explained by increased larval competition in laboratory culture, especially in population cages, and by truncation of the adult period in the bottle culture, resulting in natural selection acting solely on the early part of the adult period.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Pleiotropy, natural selection, and the evolution of senescence
Williams, G. C. (1957) · Evolution · doi:10.2307/2406060 · Cited by 1,912
Cited by
Nussey, D. H., Froy, H., Lemaitre, J.-F., Gaillard, J.-M., & Austad, S. N. (2013) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2012.07.004 · Cited by 683
Physiological Diversity in Insects: Ecological and Evolutionary Contexts
Chown, S. L., & Terblanche, J. S. (2006) · Advances in Insect Physiology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2806(06)33002-0 · Cited by 573
Sexual selection, sexual conflict and the evolution of ageing and life span
Bonduriansky, R., Maklakov, A., Zajitschek, F., & Brooks, R. (2008) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01417.x · Cited by 542
Calories Do Not Explain Extension of Life Span by Dietary Restriction in Drosophila
Mair, W., Piper, M. D. W., & Partridge, L. (2005) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030223 · Cited by 522
Self-citationCuticular Hydrocarbons: Their Evolution and Roles in Drosophila Pheromonal Communication
Ferveur, J.-F. (2005) · Behavior Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10519-005-3220-5 · Cited by 501
Metadata
- Authors
- Sgrò, C. M., & Partridge, L.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2000-10
- Volume
- 156
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 341-353
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2176491655
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evolutionary Responses of the Life History of Wild‐Caught Drosophila melanogaster to Two Standard Methods of Laboratory Culture. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/303394
- The paper
- Sgrò, C. M., & Partridge, L. (2000). Evolutionary Responses of the Life History of Wild‐Caught Drosophila melanogaster to Two Standard Methods of Laboratory Culture. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/303394
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.