
Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2003 The Evolution of Color Patterns and Color Vision in the Bluefin Killifish, Lucania Goodei Rebecca C. Fuller Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES THE EVOLUTION OF COLOR PATTERNS AND COLOR VISION IN THE BLUEFIN KILLIFISH, LUCANIA GOODEI By REBECCA C. FULLER A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Biological Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2003 The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Rebecca C. Fuller defended on _____________________________ Joseph Travis Professor Directing Dissertation _____________________________ David Gruender Outside Committee Member _____________________________ Jim Fadool Committee Member _____________________________ William Herrnkind Committee Member _____________________________ Don Levitan Committee Member Approved: __________________________________ Thomas M. Roberts, Chair, Department of Biological Science The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. To my parents, Bert and Nancy Fuller, who taught me how to write. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I thank Joe Travis for his mentoring and support throughout this project. In many ways, Joe has been the perfect advisor giving me scientific freedom to pursue this project and also giving me tremendous amounts of help and support when needed. In addition, Joe continues to be a role model for me for the manner in which he achieves an exceedingly high level of excellence in all aspects of his work. My committee members, David Gruender, Jim Fadool, Doc Herrnkind, Don Levitan, and Ted Williams, have also been very helpful throughout this project. In addition to these people, I would like to thank Thomas Hansen, David Houle, Tom Miller, and Alice Winn for their help and advice and for making FSU a stimulating place to pursue science. In this same spirit, I also thank the area 3 graduate students for their fellowship and scientific interactions. My lab mates have been especially great throughout this project. These people include Matt Aresco, Charlie Baer, Andria Beeler, Taimi Hoag, Nate Jue, Paul Richards, Jean Richardson, Matt Schraeder, Angie Shelton, and Brian Storz. Undergraduates helping with this project include Jessica Draughon, Meghan McNeilly, Amber Polvere, Josh Shramo, Tommy Waltzek, and Eric Wheeler. Special thanks go to Margaret Gunzburger, Becca Hale, Lisa Horth, and Sheryl Soucy for help in the field and for help with life in general. iv Much of this work has been a collaboration. Chapter 5 was a collaborative study with Leo Fleishman and Manuel Leal (Union College), Ellis Loew (Cornell University), and Joe Travis. Chapters 6 and 7 were collaborative studies with Karen Carleton and Tyrone Spadey (University of New Hampshire), Jim Fadool, and Joe Travis. I thank them all for helping me to bridge the fields of physiology, molecular genetics, and evolution. This work was funded by a fellowship from Graduate Women in Science (to R. C. Fuller), a National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant (to J. Travis and R.C. Fuller), and a National Science Foundation Grant (to J. Travis). In addition, my stipend was funded by the National Science Foundation and Florida State University. Finally, I thank my beloved husband, Jeff, who, in addition to reading countless manuscripts and catching lots of fish in the Everglades, makes me a happier and healthier person. v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables.....................................................................................................................vii List of Figures.....................................................................................................................ix Abstract..............................................................................................................................xii 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 2. Lighting environment predicts relative abundance of male color morphs in bluefin killifish populations.............................................................................................................5 3. Multiple mating events reduce female choosiness: a model and its implications for experimental design...........................................................................................................29 4. Genetics, lighting environment, and heritable responses to lighting environment affect male color morph expression in bluefin killifish, Lucania goodei....................................53 5. Intraspecific variation in ultraviolet cone production and visual sensitivity in the bluefin killifish, Lucania goodei........................................................................................85 6. Relative opsin expression reflects population differences in vision physiology in Lucania goodei: a real-time PCR study...........................................................................106 7. Variable sensory systems in the bluefin killifish, Lucania goodei..............................126 8. Conclusions.................................................................................................................138 Literature cited.................................................................................................................142 Biographical sketch..........................................................................................................159 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Data for male color morphs across the 30 sampled populations.....................18 Table 2.2. Summary of results for each color morph. Factors significant in initial model refers to effects that are statistically significant in the presence of all the other variables. 'Robust to removal of outlier?' refers to whether or not the significant factors in either the initial or final model still have statistically significant effects upon removal of the outlier................................................................................................19 Table 3.1. Regression analyses between female preference and male quality for two measures of preference, latency to spawn and interspawn interval...................................44 Table 4.1. Number of animals at various life-stages for each family in the greenhouse experiment..........................................................................................................................65 Table 5.1. Mean and coefficient of variation (CV) of λmax calculated across individuals for the spring and swamp populations. N = 11 for spring. N = 10 for swamp. Note that CV λmax is approximately 1% for all opsin classes............................................................98 Table 5.2. Mean frequencies for each cone class in each of the two populations. N = 11 for spring. N = 10 for swamp. Values in bold indicate statistically significant differences after bonferonni adjustment at P < 0.01..........................................................................101 Table 6.1. Primers and probes.........................................................................................113 Table 6.2. Efficiencies for the spring and swamp populations. Means and standard errors are shown. N=3...............................................................................................................116 Table 6.3. Repeatabilities and coefficients of variation (CV). Coefficients of variation are calculated without the far outlier. N=6 for CV (across individual means). N=18 for CV (all measures). Average CV (within samples) is the average CV across the six individuals. Average CV (within samples) represents experimental error whereas CV (individual means) represents the true coefficient of variation among individuals.........118 vii Table 6.4. Relative cone frequency and relative opsin expression for each opsin/cone type. Means and standard errors are listed for both populations plus the grand mean. Relative cone frequency: spring N=11, swamp N=10, grand mean N=21. Relative opsin expression: spring N=10, swamp N=10, grand mean N=20..................................121 Table 7.1. Effects of sires, dams within sires, environment and the interaction between sires and environment......................................................................................................131 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Location of sampled populations. Only sampled drainages are shown.........10 Figure 2.2. Schematic diagram of apparatus used to measure light transmission through the water. (A) Reflectance probe in contact with test cap. (B) Reflectance probe 20 mm away from the test cap.......................................................................................................11 Figure 2.3. (A) Component loading of PC1 and PC2 onto light transmission of each wavelength between 360 - 800 nm. (B) Means and standard errors of UV/blue transmission (PC2) across drainages.................................................................................16 Figure 2.4. Factors accounting for significant amounts of variation in blue and red morph abundance. Each data point represents a population. Arrows point to outliers with high leverage. (a) Relationship between
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages176 Page
-
File Size-