
The continued survival and reproduction of insects in a changing environment will often depend on evolutionary changes that counter environmental stresses, a process that may involve two types of changes (Hofmann and Parsons 1991) . Insects may adapt by altering their ability to counter a climatic stress, irrespective of the environments they experience prior to the onset of the stress. Insects may also counter a stress by changing the way they respond to conditions that precede a stress.

This second type of evolutionary change involves the selection of genotypes with altered levels of plasticity. Plastic changes that are used by insects to counter a stress include the process of acclimation, in which case stress resistance is increased following exposure to nonlethal conditions. They also include responses to environmental cues that result in an insect avoiding a stress or in an insect entering a dormant stage of its life cycle (Levins 1968) .

To determine whether insect populations adapt via such plastic changes requires information about genetic variation for plasticity in evasion responses and acclimation within and between populations. A few insect studies have examined the genetic basis of variation in plastic responses involving stress evasion, and these have shown that responses to conditions inducing dormant phases may be S94 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST under genetic control. For example, in the milkweed bug, Dingle (1978) found that a high proportion of the variance for the critical period inducing diapause was genetic. Selection of nondiapausing strains under a particular light regimen was achieved in a few generations. Similarly, larvae of the pitcher-plant mosquito could be readily selected for an altered incidence of diapause after a long photoperiod (Istock 1978) . Geographical variation in cues inducing stress evasion responses has also been shown to be under genetic control in a few instances (Tauber et al. 1986 ). For example, Tauber and Tauber (1982) found that diapause and reproduction in an Alaskan population of a lacewing were controlled by photoperiod, but this factor did not influence diapause and reproduction in a California population.

In contrast, very little genetic research has been carried out on plastic responses involving acclimation for increased stress resistance. Apart from the few Drosophila studies reviewed below, almost nothing is known about genetic variation for acclimation ability within and between insect populations. Acclimation responses would seem to present a good opportunity for investigating plastic adaptation, because much is already known about the types of acclimation responses insects use to counter different stresses.

Genetic studies on acclimation ability need to consider the following questions in assessing the likelihood of plastic adaptation:

1. How readily can evolutionary changes in acclimation responses occur? This question requires an evaluation of genetic variation for acclimation ability within populations. While many experiments have shown that increased stress resistance can be readily selected in insects (Huey and Kingsolver 1989; Hoffmann and Parsons 1991) , conditions likely to result in acclimation have only been incorporated in a few selection regimes (see, e.g., Tucic 1979) ; even in these cases plastic and nonplastic responses have not been distinguished after selection. It is therefore not known if insect populations can readily undergo evolutionary changes in acclimation response.

2. Have populations exposed to different climates diverged for acclimation responses, or are population differences in stress resistance mostly nonplastic? There is ample evidence that insect populations can differ in their ability to counter environmental stresses (Hoffmann and Parsons 1991) and in physiological mechanisms likely to underlie differences in stress resistance (Gibbs et al. 1991) . However, not much is known about population differences in acclimation ability. This also applies to organisms other than insects, with a few notable exceptions (see, e.g., Brown and Feldmeth 1971; Tsuji 1988) .

3. Are costs involved in an increased ability to acclimate? Costs have been postulated as a way of accounting for the absence of genotypes with a very high degree of plasticity (Heslop-Harrison 1964; Bradshaw 1965 ), but there is not much relevant data. Genotypes with a high acclimation ability may have reduced fitness under benign conditions because of structural/energetic constraints. Such constraints may be imposed by mechanisms needed to detect cues preceding a stress and respond to the stress once it has been detected.

4. Are theoretical predictions about environmental conditions favoring plastic and nonplastic changes met? While some environmental changes have been pos-STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA S95 tulated to favor plastic over nonplastic changes (Levins 1968; Lynch and Gabriel 1987; Hoffmann and Parsons 1991) , there have been only a few attempts at empirical evaluation. For example, Bradley's (1978) research on copepods suggested that rapid temperature changes selected for nonplastic responses, whereas individuals could largely counter slow changes in temperature by acclimation.

5. Are genes controlling plastic and nonplastic responses to stress independent? The question of whether the means of traits and their plasticity are likely to evolve independently has been investigated in studies on morphological traits. For example, Scheiner and Lyman (1990) generated plastic variation in thorax size by exposing Drosophila melanogaster to different temperatures. Using family selection, they were successful in selecting for altered levels of plasticity without much change in mean thorax size, which suggests that genes influencing mean thorax length and its plasticity were partly independent. These findings may not apply to acclimation responses. The same physiological mechanisms could underlie a plastic response and nonplastic variation in stress resistance, in which case genotypes with a high level of stress resistance might show a decreased acclimation response (Hoffmann 1990 ).
PLASTICITY AND STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA
We are attempting to answer some of these questions by investigating resistance to climatic stress in Drosophila. Much of the previous research in this area has involved exposing individuals to a stress without the possibility of acclimation. For example, genetic variation in heat resistance within populations has usually been examined by exposing Drosophila directly to heat stress (see, e.g., Hosgood and Parsons 1968; Morrison and Milkman 1978; Stephanou et al. 1983) . Only some studies have considered genetic variation in plastic responses, and most of this work has involved comparisons of populations from different environments.
PLASTICITY AND STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA
One of the few studies examining acclimation for heat resistance is Maynard Smith's (1957a) comparison of acclimation in inbred and outbred strains of Drosophila subobscura. Individuals were acclimated by keeping them as adults or larvae at 15? or 25?C. While inbred and outbred strains did not differ consistently in adult acclimation responses, outbred strains showed an increased larval acclimation ability. This difference suggests genetic variation in plastic responses within populations, but the relevance of these results to variation between strains without a history of inbreeding is not known. The only evidence for such variation was obtained by Oudman et al. (1992) using lines of Drosophila melanogaster differing at the ADH and aGPDH enzyme loci. They found that differences in the heat resistance of genotypes at these loci depended on the rearing temperature, which suggests that the loci contributed to variation in larval acclimation.
PLASTICITY AND STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA
The effects of acclimation on heat resistance in populations of several Drosophila species were examined by Levins (1969) . Adults were acclimated by being exposed to constant temperatures (13?-29?C) for a few days. By comparing the heat resistance of flies acclimated at the temperature extremes, Levins concluded that there were species and population differences in acclimation ability. For S96 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST example, none of the Drosophila willistoni populations showed an acclimation response, whereas exposure to a high temperature did not appear to increase resistance in some Drosophila simulans populations but increased resistance by as much as 50% in other D. simulans populations. However, interpretation of these experiments is difficult because they were carried out with different assistants in different times and places. Moreover, population differences in acclimation response were inferred indirectly rather than by a statistical analysis of population by acclimation treatment interactions.
PLASTICITY AND STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA
The heat and cold resistance of Japanese populations of two widespread Drosophila species, Drosophila virilis and Drosophila immigrans, was examined by Yamamoto and Ohba (1982) . Adult D. virilis were more resistant to both temperature extremes than adult D. immigrans, and there were smaller resistance differences between populations. Flies were also acclimated by holding them at 140 or 25?C for 2 d before testing heat resistance. The 25?C treatment increased heat resistance to a much greater extent in D. immigrans than in D. virilis, but no statistical analysis of population differences in acclimation ability was presented. Acclimation for cold resistance has also been examined in Japanese populations of the melanogaster species group (Kimura 1988) . There were large species differences in cold resistance after acclimation to 3?C, but comparable data for flies without prior exposure to cold conditions were not collected. Species restricted to cold environments were more resistant than those from warm environments, but populations did not differ in resistance. Kimura suggests that the development of cold hardiness following acclimation evolves "in accordance with the progress of speciation" (p. 1295), which accounts for the lack of variation between populations, although some of the populations appeared to have been maintained in the laboratory at a constant temperature for a long time.
PLASTICITY AND STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA
Apart from research on temperature acclimation, one Drosophila study (Hoffmann 1991) has considered geographical variation in acclimation responses for desiccation stress. Populations of D. melanogaster and D. simulans from tropical and temperate sites were compared. Previous experiments (Hoffmann 1990 ) had shown that resistance in these species can be increased by prior exposure to a nonlethal desiccation stress. Populations from the tropical site were more sensitive to desiccation than temperate populations, but there were no differences in acclimation responses. Acclimation was not detected in Drosophila birchii, a species restricted to the tropics, but did occur in its sibling species Drosophila serrata, which is more widespread. This observation suggested variation in acclimation at the interspecific level but not at the intraspecific level. Drosophila melanogaster lines selected for increased desiccation resistance were also scored for acclimation responses. Selected lines showed less acclimation than unselected lines (Hoffmann 1990) , even when selected lines were exposed to a longer prior stress period than the control lines to compensate for their greater level of resistance. This result indicates that genes controlling acclimation and nonplastic desiccation resistance were not independent.
PLASTICITY AND STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA
In summary, the few studies carried out to date suggest that acclimation responses can vary between related Drosophila species, but there is only limited evidence for genetic variation for acclimation responses within and between pop-ulations. Many of the population comparisons have failed to compare acclimation and nonacclimation treatments directly. Only some types of acclimation responses have been examined, and there has been little attempt to relate acclimation treatments and stresses to conditions likely to be experienced in the field.
POPULATION COMPARISONS FOR HEAT AND COLD ACCLIMATION
We have examined the acclimation responses of Australian Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans populations for cold and heat resistance. We have focused on the resistance of adults rather than larvae. While larval heat resistance may be an important ecological trait because of extreme summer temperatures in the breeding sites of Drosophila, adults are more likely to experience extreme cold temperatures. This is because D. melanogaster and D. simulans overwinter in temperate regions at the adult stage when low temperature extremes are correlated with winter survival (Izquierdo 1991) .
POPULATION COMPARISONS FOR HEAT AND COLD ACCLIMATION
The cold resistance of adults may be influenced by several forms of acclimation. Resistance is affected by the temperature Drosophila have previously experienced at the larval stage, and it may also be influenced by temperatures experienced by parents of flies if there are maternal/paternal factors carried into the next generation. In addition, two types of adult acclimation responses for cold resistance have been identified. First, the resistance of Drosophila and other insects can be rapidly increased by short exposure to a low temperature (Lee 1989) . This acclimation effect, often called a hardening response, is likely to be important in countering daily temperature fluctuations or short cold spells. Second, the resistance of Drosophila can be increased to an even greater extent by exposing adults to low temperatures for a few days (Kimura 1988 ). This response is likely to be important in countering long periods of cold stress such as seasonal cold spells, which are usually preceded by a gradual decrease in temperature. Acclimation for cold resistance therefore encompasses a number of responses likely to be controlled by different physiological mechanisms. Genetic variation could occur for each of these responses, and any description of plasticity for stress resistance must consider all the responses as well as genetic interactions between them and nonplastic stress resistance.
POPULATION COMPARISONS FOR HEAT AND COLD ACCLIMATION
In the experiments below, we consider responses to temperature extremes (cold and heat) in two populations of D. melanogaster and D. simulans from the east coast of Australia. One population (Melbourne) is from southern Australia (380S), while the other (Cairns) is from the tropics (170S). Melbourne has a temperate climate, and temperature extremes vary from about 0?C in winter to over 40?C in summer. The mean daily minimum temperature in July is 5?C compared to a daily maximum of 26?C in January. In contrast, temperatures are less variable and much warmer in Cairns. Extremes vary from about 10?C in winter to 35?-40?C in summer, and the mean daily July minimum is 17?C compared to a January maximum of 3 1?C.
POPULATION COMPARISONS FOR HEAT AND COLD ACCLIMATION
These diverse climates are likely to select for different genotypes, and there is ample evidence for genetic divergence between tropical and temperate Australian populations of D. mnelanogaster. Quantitative traits that show genetic divergence S98 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST include body size and resistance to desiccation, ethanol, and cold (see Parsons 1982) . There are also electrophoretic differences between these populations (Oakeshott et al. 1982) . Population differences in stress resistance can often be interpreted from an adaptive perspective. For example, Melbourne strains are relatively more resistant than tropical strains to desiccation and a -1?C cold stress (Stanley and Parsons 1981) . These populations therefore provide an opportunity to investigate the role of acclimation in adaptation to different climates. In contrast, D. simulans may show less divergence for quantitative traits between these populations, as in the case of ethanol resistance (Anderson and Oakeshott 1986) .
POPULATION COMPARISONS FOR HEAT AND COLD ACCLIMATION
In the cold resistance experiments, we consider the response of these populations to the short-and long-term adult acclimation responses described above, and we also consider plastic changes resulting from larval and parental culture conditions. We have stressed flies at two temperatures ( -2? and -5?C) in these experiments. Two stress levels were used to encompass the range of stresses used by other workers (Tucic 1979; Stanley and Parsons 1981; Czajka and Lee 1990; Davidson 1990 ) and to use stresses that give very different mortality curves. The -2?C temperature is close to the minimum winter temperature experienced in Melbourne, although it should, of course, be emphasized that behavioral responses may modify the temperatures actually experienced by the flies. Temperatures just below 0?C are low enough to cause mortality in D. melanogaster because this species cannot survive temperatures well above its supercooling point of -20?C (Tucic 1979; Czajka and Lee 1990) . Flies were acclimated only by exposure to nonlethal low temperatures. Although photoperiod can also influence cold resistance in some insects, this factor does not affect the adult diapause or resistance of D. melanogaster (Kimura 1988) .
POPULATION COMPARISONS FOR HEAT AND COLD ACCLIMATION
Increased resistance to a heat stress can be induced in Drosophila by a short or long exposure to prior stress periods (Maynard Smith 1957b; Levins 1969; Lindquist 1986 ) as well as larval culture temperature (Maynard Smith 1957b), but we have only considered long-term adult exposure. We have followed the protocol of Levins (1969) to test the reproducibility of his findings using the temperate and tropical populations of D. melanogaster and D. simulans. Both the acclimation temperatures (13?-29?C) and stress temperature (39?C) are experienced at the sites where the populations originated, although these temperatures may not necessarily be experienced by flies because of behavioral evasion. Mean summer and winter temperatures are much higher in Cairns than in Melbourne, but high temperature extremes are similar in the two populations. Melbourne flies might be expected to show a different acclimation response because of the greater daily and seasonal temperature variability experienced by flies from this population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Stocks and Measurement of Cold Resistance
Each laboratory stock was initiated with the progeny of 35-50 inseminated females collected from the field. Melbourne flies were collected from an apple orchard, and Cairns flies were obtained from a banana plantation. Flies were cultured on a sucrose-dead yeast medium under continuous light at 250 ? 0.50C unless stated otherwise. Stocks were maintained by mass transfer of a few hundred individuals each generation.
Stocks and Measurement of Cold Resistance
Experiments were carried out 5-10 generations after flies were brought in from the field. Laboratory culture does not seem to have much effect on acclimation ability. In preliminary experiments, we have found that the acclimation responses of stocks tested one to two generations after they are brought into the laboratory are similar to those of stocks from the same location that have been under laboratory culture for a year (about 15 generations).
Stocks and Measurement of Cold Resistance
Flies for the cold resistance experiments were cultured at a low density in 600-mL bottles. Adults were collected from bottles when they were 0-2 d old. After being aged under different conditions as described below, flies were sexed under carbon dioxide anesthesia. To measure cold resistance, vials were set up with 10 males and 10 females. Flies were left to recover from anesthesia for a day before they were transferred to plastic vials. These were placed in a 24-vial rack and submerged in a Braun refrigerated bath. Exposure temperatures in the vials were recorded with a calibrated thermometer and varied 0.20-0.60C in an experiment. Flies were left to jason73@example.net. Following Czajka and Lee (1990) , we scored flies that could stand, walk, or fly as alive. The cold resistance of males and females was scored separately, and a sex factor was not examined in the analysis because male and female data were not independent.
Stocks and Measurement of Cold Resistance
Cold resistance of Drosophila melanogaster after Adult Acclimation Rapid hardening, -20C stress. -This experiment measured the effects of rapid cold hardening on resistance to a -20C stress. Czajka and Lee (1990) found that a 2-h exposure to 50C markedly increased the subsequent survival of Drosophila melanogaster when they were stressed at -50C for 2 h. Our preliminary experiments indicated a similar effect when adults were exposed to temperatures in the 40-60C range. Flies were therefore exposed to 40C for 2 h before being transferred to -20C for 23 h (the actual stress varied between -1.50 and -2.00C). This stress period provided intermediate mortality levels. Flies had been cultured at 190C rather than 250C and were 3-5 d old at the time of testing, an age when rapid hardening ability is at a maximum (Czajka and Lee 1990 ). The experimental design is given by Yijkl,n a + bi + c. + dlj + ek(l.) g
Stocks and Measurement of Cold Resistance
where a is the grand mean, bi the acclimation treatment effect, cj the population effect, dij the interaction between population and acclimation treatment, and ek(iU) the error term. Six replicates were set up for each population and treatment combination.
Stocks and Measurement of Cold Resistance
Rapid hardening, -50C stress.-This experiment tested the effects of rapid hardening on resistance to an extreme stress. Flies were exposed to 40C for 2 h and stressed at -5oC for around 50 min. This stress period ensured some survivors in both the control and acclimated treatments. Recorded temperatures in the experiments varied between -4.90 and -5.50C. The 50-min exposure time is shorter than the 2-h period used by Czajka and Lee (1990) because we found that a 2-hour period resulted in 100% mortality of both acclimated and nonacclimated S 100 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST flies. Three repeats of this experiment were carried out, so that 360 flies were tested overall for each treatment. Flies were 2-4 d old at the time of testing. The experimental design follows equation (1) except that a main effect due to the repeat experiments was also included. We expected mean mortalities to differ between repeats because of temperature variation in the refrigerated bath. Long-term cold hardening.-To measure cold hardening, we initially undertook experiments in which adults were exposed to 15?C for 7 d. These experiments were carried out with both D. melanogaster and Drosophila simulans and are described below. In addition, we examined the effect of a second exposure period at 6?C, because Kimura (1988) suggested that this treatment further increased the cold hardiness of Drosophila. Flies were acclimated by exposing them to 15?C for 14 d or by exposing them to 15?C for 7 d followed by 7 d at 6?C. The experimental design follows equation (1) because only one experiment was carried out. Resistance was increased markedly by both treatments, and flies had to be stressed for 11 h at -5C (actual recorded temperatures were -4.8? to -5.3?C) to obtain intermediate mortality levels. The resistance of 14-d-old flies not acclimated at the low temperature could not be tested at the same time because these had all died after an exposure period of less than 2 h.
Effect of Larval and Parental Temperature on Cold Resistance
of Drosophila melanogaster These experiments were carried out only with D. melanogaster. Populations were initially cultured in bottles at 18? or 25?C, and populations from each of these temperatures were cultured for a second generation at both 18? and 250C, to give four parental/larval culture treatments. By setting up cultures for the second generation at different times, flies from each treatment emerged simultaneously. Flies were collected within 16 h after emergence and aged for 2-3 d at 250C before being stressed. Because larval culture temperature had a smaller effect on cold resistance than long-term adult acclimation, treatments could be compared by exposing adults for the same length of time.
Effect of Larval and Parental Temperature on Cold Resistance
Flies were stressed at two temperatures, -50C (45 min) and -20C (135 min).
Effect of Larval and Parental Temperature on Cold Resistance
There were four repeat experiments at -50C (recorded temperatures varied between -4.90 and -5.50C) and six repeat experiments at -20C (recorded temperatures varied between -2.0? and -2.30C). The 135-min exposure time used for the -20C stress is much shorter than the 23-h exposure period we used in the experiment described above. We suspect that a shorter time was required to achieve intermediate mortalities because of the small increase in the level of cold stress in this experiment.
Effect of Larval and Parental Temperature on Cold Resistance
The experimental design is given by Yiiklm = a + bj + Ck + d, + fm + Cdkl + Cfk,n + dflm + cdfklm + en2(ijkl1n)' (2) where bj is the block (experiment) term, Ck the parental temperature term, d1 the culture temperature term, gfm the population term, and en(ijklm) the error term. The remaining terms are the interactions, and the dfim and cfkm terms are of particular interest because they represent the interactions between population and larval/ parental acclimation. In each experiment, three replicates were set up for a treatment-population combination. Flies of both species were bred at 25?C. After emergence, flies were aged for 7 d at 13? or 25?C. Preliminary experiments showed that acclimation at 130C markedly increased cold resistance in both species. Almost all of the D. melanogaster and D. simulans flies held at 250C were dead after exposure to -20C for 4 h or more, while flies acclimated at the lower temperature did not start to die until after 12 h at -20C. The two treatments could therefore not be compared in the same experiment.
Effect of Larval and Parental Temperature on Cold Resistance
Flies were stressed at -20C (range -1.90 to -2.40C) for 17.5 h (180C flies) or 110 min (250C flies). Three repeat experiments were set up for the 180C treatment, and four repeats for the 250C treatment. The experimental design is given by Yijkln = a + bi + C1 + dk + Cdjk + el(iIk), (3) where bi is the block (repeat experiment) term, cj the species term, dk the origin term, cdjk the origin by species interaction, and el(ijk) the error term. There were six replicates for each population-species combination in an experiment.
Heat Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans Populations
The experiments follow the procedures in Levins (1969) . Flies were reared at 190C and aged (sexes mixed) after emergence for 2 jason73@example.net. Flies were then sexed, and females were placed at 130, 250, or 290C for 4 d at a density of 10 females per vial. Females were transferred to empty vials prior to testing for heat resistance. The vials were placed in a 39?C incubator and held at high (>80%) humidity. Flies were initially scored for knockdown. Females on their sides or back at the bottom of a vial were considered to be knocked down. Vials were removed after a time, and females were transferred to a different set of vials with food that were kept at 19?C. The number of females that recovered (i.e., were mobile) in these vials was scored after 24 h.
Heat Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans Populations
Species were tested separately because D. melanogaster was more resistant to heat than D. simulans. Each experiment was set up as a series of blocks. A block -consisted of only six vials (one vial for each population and acclimation treatment combination) to facilitate rapid scoring of knockdown numbers. For D. melanogaster, knockdown resistance was scored after 22 min, and vials were removed from heat after 28 min to test recovery. Knockdown in D. simulans was scored after 10 min, and vials were removed from heat after only 14 min. Five blocks were set up for each species. The experimental design follows equation (1) except that there was a main effect due to block.
RESULTS

Cold Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster after Adult Acclimation
Rapid hardening, -2?C stress.-Acclimation increased cold resistance significantly in the males, and the female results (P < .10) suggest a similar trend (table 1) 1), and the two populations showed a similar acclimation response as indicated by the absence of a significant interaction term (table 1) . Rapid hardening, -5?C stress.-The 2-h exposure to 4?C significantly increased resistance in both sexes (table 1), in agreement with Czajka and Lee (1990) , although the acclimation response was not as marked as in their study. Populations did not differ overall in resistance and showed similar acclimation responses ( fig. 1) . The absence of a significant population difference contrasts with the -2?C stress results. This finding suggests that the detection of population differences may depend on the stress level that is applied, although population differences were detected in a subsequent experiment involving a -5?C stress (see below).
Cold Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster after Adult Acclimation
Long-term cold hardening.-The 14 d that flies spent at cool temperatures resulted in a high degree of cold resistance. Females held for 7 d at 15?C and 7 d at 6?C were more resistant than those held at 15?C for 14 d ( fig. 1) . This difference may reflect the effects of cold hardening or differences in the aging rate at the two temperatures. However, the 6?C treatment did not influence the resistance of the males (table 1) . Melbourne flies of both sexes were more resistant to cold than Cairns flies regardless of the acclimation treatment, and the absence of interactions indicates that populations did not differ in the extent to which the 6?C exposure further enhanced resistance.
Cold Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster after Adult Acclimation
Stress Stress NOTE.-Numbers represent mean squares; ANOVAs were carried out on 10 x arcsine-transformed proportions of flies that were alive 24 h after the cold stress. Parents and progeny were cultured at 180 or 25?C. * P < .05. ** P < .01. *** P < .001.
Effect of Larval and Parental Temperature on Cold Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster
For the -2?C cold stress, the ANOVAs (table 2) indicate a significant effect of larval culture temperature on the cold resistance of both sexes, but parental temperature did not significantly influence resistance. As might be expected, larvae cultured at 18?C were more resistant than those cultured at 25?C ( fig. 2) . This difference was evident in both populations, and the absence of a significant interaction between population and culture temperature indicates that the acclimation effect was of a similar magnitude in Melbourne and Cairns flies. Melbourne females were more resistant than Cairns females, but this population difference was not evident in the males.
Effect of Larval and Parental Temperature on Cold Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster
Similar results were obtained for the -5?C stress experiments (table 2) . Larvae cultured at 18?C were more resistant than those cultured at 25?C ( fig. 2) -Effect of larval and parental culture temperature on the cold resistance of Drosophila melanogaster populations. Flies were reared at 250 or 18'C (parental temperature), and progeny from each type of parent were also reared at 250 or 1 8'C (culture temperature). The first number in the legend refers to the parental temperature, and the second number refers to the culture temperature. Error bars are the mean SDs of the six (-20C stress) or four (-5o stress) repeat experiments.
Effect of Larval and Parental Temperature on Cold Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster
absence of a significant interaction indicates that this acclimation response was similar in the two populations. In both sexes, there were significant differences between populations because Melbourne flies were more resistant than Cairns flies. For the female data, there was a significant (P < .05) interaction between parental temperature and population, because of the fact that Melbourne females from parents cultured at 250C were more resistant than those from parents cultured at 18'C, whereas no such difference was evident in the Cairns population. NOTE.-Numbers represent mean squares; ANOVAs were carried out on 10 x arcsine-transformed proportions of flies alive after 24 h. Flies were aged for 7 d at 25?C or acclimated by holding them at 13?C for 7 d. * P < .10. ** P < .05.
Effect of Larval and Parental Temperature on Cold Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster
*** P < .01.
Effect of Larval and Parental Temperature on Cold Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster
**** P < .001.
Effect of Larval and Parental Temperature on Cold Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster
This parental effect is the opposite of what might be expected. The significance of the "repeat" term probably reflects small differences in the cold stress temperature.
Cold Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans Populations
The cold resistance of both species was increased markedly by the 13?C treatment, as reflected by the vastly different times flies held at 130 and 25?C had to be exposed to -2?C to obtain intermediate mortality levels. There were significant differences in cold resistance between the species for flies that had been held at 130 and at 25?C (table 3) . After acclimation at 13?C, Drosophila simulans was less resistant to cold stress than Drosophila melanogaster, but D. simulans was significantly more resistant than D. melanogaster after flies were held at 25?C. The extent to which cold resistance was increased by the 13?C treatment was therefore greater in D. melanogaster than in D. simulans.
Cold Resistance of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans Populations
Population differences were not evident when flies were held at 25?C. However, Melbourne males of both species were significantly more resistant than Cairns males after acclimation at 13?C (fig. 3) . A similar difference was evident in the females although the population effect was only marginally significant (P < .10). The absence of significant interactions between the species and population effects indicates that differences between the populations were of a similar magnitude in both species. Table 4 presents ANOVAs for knockdown and recovery, and means for the recovery data are plotted in figure 4 . Acclimation influenced the resistance of both species, regardless of whether resistance was scored as knockdown or recovery. which seemed to have a similar level of resistance when they were acclimated at 290 and 13?C. When the 290 and 13?C data from the D. simulans populations are compared by a one-way ANOVA, the difference between acclimation treatments is significant in Melbourne (P < .05) but not in Cairns. However, the interaction effects are not significant in the ANOVAs, which indicates that the acclimation responses of the populations cannot be distinguished when they are compared directly. Interaction terms are also nonsignificant when only the data for the 290 and 13?C treatments are compared. There were overall population differences for the recovery measure, which reflects greater resistance of Melbourne females to knockdown in both species.
DISCUSSION
The experiments provide little evidence for intraspecific variation in the different types of acclimation responses for cold resistance. The populations of Drosophila melanogaster from Cairns and Melbourne showed the same degree of acclimation when adults were exposed to sublethal cold stresses for a few hours or for several days. Moreover, larval culture temperature had a similar effect on resistance in both populations. Similarly, the Cairns and Melbourne Drosophila simulans populations showed the same degree of acclimation when adults were aged at different temperatures. These conclusions applied regardless of whether flies were stressed at -5? or -2?C. The results are therefore consistent with other Drosophila studies on cold resistance (Yamamoto and Ohba 1982; Kimura 1988) , which indicates little population differentiation in acclimation responses for cold resistance. We have also failed to repeat the findings of Levins (1969) on acclimation for heat resistance. Levins found that both D. simulans and D. melanogaster populations varied markedly in their acclimation responses. We were unable to find such differences despite using acclimation regimens and a heat stress that were similar to those used by Levins. It is possible that we may have detected population differences in acclimation ability if a larger number of populations had been examined. However, the Cairns and Melbourne populations were deliberately chosen to represent very different climatic regimes. A limitation of the experiments described by Levins (1969) is that the acclimation-by-population interactions were not tested directly but were inferred by a comparison of the 29? and 13?C treatments carried out separately for each experiment. It is worth noting that our D. simulans results indicate a significant difference between the 29? and 13C treatments for the Melbourne population but not for the Cairns population when these populations are compared separately. However, the absence of a significant population-by-acclimation interaction in the ANOVA indicates that populations did not differ in acclimation responses. Conclusions based only on separate comparisons of the means should therefore be treated cautiously when differences between treatments are small and there is a high degree of interreplicate variation. To detect a significant difference in the heat acclimation response of two populations would require a very large and well-designed experiment.
DISCUSSION
A lack of power to detect differences in acclimation response is evident in some of our experiments (and those of other Drosophila researchers) on cold resistance. In the D. melanogaster experiments on rapid acclimation, simulations show that the population-by-acclimation term in the ANOVAs would not have been significant even if Cairns had shown an acclimation response as little as 30% of that of the Melbourne population. This observation is true even for the -5?C stress treatment, which involved several repeat experiments and 18 replicates for each population-acclimation combination. We can therefore only conclude from our results that both D. melanogaster populations were acclimated after a short exposure period, although the means for the treatments ( fig. 1 ) suggest that the acclimation response was of a similar magnitude in the populations.
DISCUSSION
In contrast, there is more power to detect variation in acclimation response in the larval acclimation experiments, because of the size of the difference between the acclimated and nonacclimated treatments. Simulations indicate that the population-by-acclimation interaction would have been significant if Cairns males had shown an acclimation response that was 70% of the response shown by Melbourne males. Even so, smaller differences in acclimation ability would have remained undetected in these experiments. Such small differences were likely to have been apparent only in the experiments in which adults were exposed to low temperatures for 1 or 2 wk. Because this acclimation treatment had such a drastic influence on resistance, small differences in acclimation ability would have led to large population differences in resistance following acclimation in D. melanogaster and D. simnulans, which was clearly not the case ( fig. 3) .
DISCUSSION
It should be emphasized that the detection of population-by-acclimation treatment interactions can depend on the scale of measurement when populations differ markedly in their overall levels of resistance. In the ANOVAs carried out in this study, interactions were tested on survival data after arcsine transformation. This means that acclimation effects are assumed to be independent of overall population means. An increase in survival following acclimation from 20% to 30% in one population is therefore considered roughly the same as an increase from 70% to 80% in another population. However, it may be more appropriate to assume that acclimation effects and the overall resistance of populations are not independent. In this case, an increase in survival from 20% to 30% may represent a larger acclimation response than an increase from 70% to 80%, because the former situation represents a larger proportional increase in resistance. Log trans- 
STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA
Sill formations can be used to test for interactions if acclimation responses are assumed to be proportional to overall population means. We have therefore reanalyzed the results of some of our experiments using log-transformed data. In no case did this reanalysis provide evidence for significant population-by-acclimation interactions.
STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA
Despite the absence of population differences in acclimation ability, we have confirmed earlier results (Stanley and Parsons 1981 ) on nonplastic differences in cold resistance between tropical and temperate Australian populations. Melbourne D. inelanogaster were relatively more resistant regardless of how cold resistance was measured. This difference was evident when larvae were cultured at different temperatures or when adults were aged at low temperatures. Adult D. simulans from Melbourne were also more resistant than those from Cairns after adults were acclimated at a low temperature, and the population difference was of a similar magnitude in the two species. Nevertheless, nonplastic population differences were not detected in three experiments, which suggests that caution is required when concluding that populations do not show differences in stress resistance on the basis of a single test of resistance. For example, Davidson (1990) concluded that the cold resistance of D. simulans from Melbourne did not differ from those originating from Townsville, a tropical site near Cairns, and this result may reflect the fact that only one measure of cold resistance was used.
STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA
The absence of population differences in acclimation response in contrast to nonplastic differences may indicate that climatic adaptation at the intraspecific level involves nonplastic changes acting independently of acclimation. The reasons for an absence of plastic adaptive changes are not known. A number of factors may favor nonplastic adaptation to an environmental stress (Hoffmann and Parsons 1991) . These include low levels of genetic variance for acclimation ability within populations or costs associated with increased acclimation responses. We are presently investigating genetic variance for acclimation responses within populations using selection experiments and strain comparisons.
STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA
The acclimation responses of the sibling species D. melanogaster and D. simulans were similar. Both species could be cold hardened by short exposure to a low temperature (D. simulans data are not presented), and both species showed large increases in resistance following adult exposures of a few days. Nevertheless, there was evidence for species differences in acclimation ability following adult exposure to 13?C because D. simulans adults were more cold-resistant after being held at 25?C, whereas D. melanogaster flies were more resistant after being held at 13?C, which indicates that D. melanogaster showed a greater acclimation response to the low temperature. This difference was small compared to the overall acclimation effect; the resistance of flies of both species was increased considerably when flies were aged at 13?C as indicated by the short time (1.8 h) required to score resistance of the 25?C flies compared to the long time (17.5 h) for the 13?C flies. Hence, while there is evidence for some interspecific variation in acclimation response in agreement with other Drosophila species comparisons (Kimura 1988) , these small differences do not suggest that D. melanogaster and D. simulans follow different strategies in countering climatic stresses.
STRESS RESISTANCE IN DROSOPHILA
In conclusion, we have failed to demonstrate significant differences in the accli-

{'paper_id': '132154', 'title': 'Geographical Variation in the Acclimation Responses of Drosophila to Temperature Extremes', 's2_url': 'https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:132154', 'source': 'S2ORC'}