Does genome size explain rarity in beetles? The case from Coccinelidae and Chrysomelidae families

• Autorzy: Zalewski M. , Ciurzycki W.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Accumulation of selfish DNA in cells has fundamental consequences for organism metabolism. Detrimental effects of large genome size have been demonstrated for several aspects of performance in plant and animal species. Here we check if a large genome affects occupancy among Coccinelidae and Chrysomelidae occurring in Poland. It was possible to match literature data on distribution and genome-size data for 19 species of chrysomelids and 10 species of coccinelids of different rarity (occurrence expressed as % of Poland area) and body size. There was a marginally significant (P = 0.04) and expected excess of species with large genomes among rare species (<0.73% of area), as well as an excess of species with small genomes among common species (>0.89% of area) However overall correlation was not significant (P = 0.13). Body size was not related to rarity in these species. The detection of this weak signal provides a clue to the important idea that large-scale patterns may stem from differences observed at the cellular level.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Chrysomelidae; Coccinelidae; distribution; genome size; macroecology; rarity; selfish DNA

PL

biedronkowate; makroekologia; rozprowadzanie; rzadkość; samolubny DNA; stonkowate

• Wydawca: Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2010
• Tom: Vol. 58, nr 3
• Strony: 585--591
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 45 poz.,Rys., tab.,

Twórcy

autor

Zalewski M.

autor

Ciurzycki W.

• Centre for Ecological Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, M. Konopnickiej 1 Dziekanów Leśny, Poland,

Bibliografia

• 1. Bennett M.D. 1972 – Nuclear DNA content and minimum generation time in herbaceous plants – Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 181: 109–135.
• 2. Bevill R.L., Louda S.M. 1999 – Comparisons of Related Rare and Common Species in the Study of Plant Rarity – Conserv. Biol. 13: 493–498.
• 3. Brown J.H., Gillooly J.F., Allen A.P., Savage V.M., West G.B. 2004 – Toward a metabolic theory of ecology – Ecology, 85: 1771–1789.
• 4. Burakowski B., Mroczkowski M., Stefanska J. 1987 – Coleoptera: Cucujoidea 1 – Katalog fauny Polski XXIII (12–14), 1–268.
• 5. Burakowski B., Mroczkowski M., Stefanska J. 1990 – Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae 1 – Katalog Fauny Polski XVI, 1–279.
• 6. Burakowski B., Mroczkowski M., Stefanska J. 1991 – Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae 2: Galerucinae, Halticinae, Hispinae, Cassidinae – Katalog fauny Polski XXIII (17): 1–228.
• 7. Burgman M. A. 1989 – The habitat volumes of scarce and ubiquitous plants: a test of the hypothesis of environmental control – Am. Naturalist, 133: 228–239.
• 8. Cavalier-Smith T. 1985 – Selfish DNA and the origin of introns – Nature, 3l5: 283 284.
• 9. Darwin C. 1859 – The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection – John Murray, London.
• 10. Farjon A. 1998 – World Checklist and Bibliography of Conifers – Richmond, UK.
• 11. Freude H., Harde K.W, Lohse G.A. 1964 – Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Goecke and Evers – Krefeld, Germany.
• 12. Gaston K.J. 1994 – Rarity – Chapman & Hall, London.
• 13. Gregory T.R. 2001 – Coincidence, coevolution, or causation? DNA content, cell size, and the C-value enigma – Biol. Rev. 76: 65–101.
• 14. Gregory T.R. 2002 – A bird’s-eye view of the C-value enigma: genome size, cell size, and metabolic rate in the class Aves – Evolution, 56: 121–130.
• 15. Gregory T.R. 2003 – The C-value enigma in plants and animals: a review of parallels and an appeal for partnership – Ann. Bot. 95: 133–146.
• 16. Gregory T.R. 2005a – http://www.genomesize.com/
• 17. Gregory T.R. 2005b – The C-value enigma in plants and animals: a review of parallels and an appeal for partnership – Ann. Bot. 95: 133–146.
• 18. Gregory T.R., Nedved O., Adamowicz S.J. 2003 – C-value estimates for 31 species of ladybird beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) – Hereditas, 139: 121–127.
• 19. Greilhuber J., Dolezel J., Lysak M., Bennett M.D. 2005 – The origin, evolution and proposed stabilisation of the terms ‘genome size’ and ‘C-value’ to describe nuclear DNA contents – Ann. Bot. 95: 255–260.
• 20. Grotkopp E., Rejmanek M., Sanderson M.J., Rost T.L. 2004 – Evolution of genome size in pines (Pinus) and its life-history correlates: supertree analysis – Evolution, 58: 1705–1729.
• 21. Guo Q., Kato M., Ricklefs E. 2003 – Life history, diversity and distribution: a study of Japanese pteridiphytes – Ecography, 26: 129–138.
• 22. Hanski I. 1982 – Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis – Oikos, 38: 210–221.
• 23. Hughes A.L., Hughes M.K. 1995 – Small genomes for betterflyers – Nature, 377: 391.
• 24. Hughes A.L. 1999 – Adaptive Evolution of Genes and Genomes – Oxford Univ. Press, New York, Sabine S. Jakob, Armin, Meister and Frank.
• 25. Knight C.A., Ackerly D.D. 2002 – Variation in nuclear DNA content across envrionmental gradients: a quantile regression analysis – Ecol. Lett. 5: 66–76.
• 26. Knight C.A., Molinari N., Petrov D.A. 2005 – The large genome constraint hypothesis: evolution, ecology and phenotype – Ann. Bot. 95: 177–190.
• 27. Koch K. 1989 – Die Käfer Mitteleuropas – Ökologie. vol 1. Goecke and Evers, Krefeld, Germany.
• 28. Krystufek B., Griffiths H.I. 2002 – Species richness and rarity in European rodents – Ecography, 25: 120–128.
• 29. Kozłowski J., Konarzewski M., Gawelczyk A.T. 2003a – Intraspecific body size optimization produces interspecific allometries (In: Macroecology. Reconciling Divergent Perspectives on Large Scale Ecological Patterns Eds: T.M. Blackburn, K.J. Gaston) – Blackwell Publishing, pp. 299–320.
• 30. Kozłowski J., Konarzewski M., Gawelczyk A.T. 2003b – Cell size as a link between noncoding DNA and metabolic rate scaling – PNAS, 24: 14080–14085.
• 31. Lvarfz-Fuster A.J., Jan C., Petitpierre E. 1991 – Genome size in Tribolium flour-beetles: inter- and intraspecific variation – Genet. Res. Camb. 58: 1–5.
• 32. Malmqvist B. 2000 – How does wing length relate to distribution patterns of stoneflies (Plecoptera) and mayflies (Ephemeroptera) – Biol. Conserv. 93: 271–276.
• 33. Olmo E., Capriglione T., Odierna G. 1989 – Genome size evolution in vertebrates: trends and constrains – Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 92B: 447–453.
• 34. Palmer M., Petitpierre E. 1996 – Relationship of genome size to body size in Phylan semicostatus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) – Ann. of the Entom. Soc. of Am. 89: 221–225.
• 35. Petitpierre E., Juan C. 1994 – Genome size, chromosomes and egg-chorion ultrastructure in the evolution of Chrysomelinae (In: Novel aspects of the biology of Chrysomelidae. Eds: P. Jolivet et al.) – Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, Holanda. pp. 213–225.
• 36. Szujecki A., Szyszko J., Mazur S., Perliński S. 1983 – The process of forest soil macrofauna formation after afforestation of farmland – Warsaw Agricultural Press, Warsaw 120 pp.
• 37. Tilman D., Lehman C., Hille Ris Lambers J., Harpole W.S., Dybzinski R., Fargione J., Clark C. 2004 – Does metabolic theory apply to community ecology? It’s a matter of scale – Ecology, 85: 1797–1799.
• 38. Ulrich W. 2001 – Ecological characteristics of rare species: the case of parasitic Hymenoptera – Pol. J. Ecol. 49: 379–389.
• 39. Vinogradov A.E. 1995 – Nucleotypic effect in homeotherms: body-mass-corrected basal metabolic rate of mammals is related to genome size – Evolution, 49: 1249–1259.
• 40. Vinogradov A.E. 1997 – Nucleotypic effect in homeotherms: body-mass independent metabolic rate of passerine birds is related to genome size – Evolution, 51: 220–225
• 41. Vinogradov A.E. 1998 – Buffering: a possible passive-homeostasis. The hybridogenetic forms could become a suitable. role for redundant DNA – J. Theor. Biol. 193: 197–199.
• 42. Vinogradov A.E. 1999 – Genome in toto – Genome, 42: 361–362.
• 43. Vinogradov A.E. 2003 – Selfish DNA is maladaptive: evidence from the plant Red List – Trends in Genetics, 19: 609–614.
• 44. Vinogradov A.E. 2004 – Genome size and extinction risk in vertebrates – Proc. R. Soc. B, 271: 1701–1705.
• 45. Zalewski M., Ulrich W. 2007 – Dispersal as a key element of community structure: The case of ground beetles on lake islands – Div. Distr. 12: 767–775.