Comparison of Static and Dynamic Assays When Quantifying Thermal Plasticity of Drosophilids.

Abstract

Simple SummaryTemperature directly affects many biological processes, from enzymatic reactions to population growth, and thermal stress tolerance is central to our understanding of the global distribution and abundance of species and populations. Given the importance of thermal stress tolerance in ecophysiology and evolutionary biology it is important to be able to measure thermal stress resistance accurately and in ecologically relevant ways. Several methods for such quantification exist in the arthropod literature and the comparability of different methods is currently being debated. Here we reconcile the two most commonly used thermal assays (dynamic ramping and static knockdown assays) for quantifying insect heat tolerance limits and plastic responses using a newly suggested modeling technique. We find that results obtained on the basis of the two assays are highly correlated and that data from one assay can therefore reasonably well predict estimates from the other. These data are of general relevance to the study of thermal biology of ectotherms.Numerous assays are used to quantify thermal tolerance of arthropods including dynamic ramping and static knockdown assays. The dynamic assay measures a critical temperature while the animal is gradually heated, whereas the static assay measures the time to knockdown at a constant temperature. Previous studies indicate that heat tolerance measured by both assays can be reconciled using the time × temperature interaction from “thermal tolerance landscapes” (TTLs) in unhardened animals. To investigate if this relationship remains true within hardened animals, we use a static assay to assess the effect of heat hardening treatments on heat tolerance in 10 Drosophila species. Using this TTL approach and data from the static heat knockdown experiments, we model the expected change in dynamic heat knockdown temperature (CTmax: temperature at which flies enter coma) and compare these predictions to empirical measurements of CTmax. We find that heat tolerance and hardening capacity are highly species specific and that the two assays report similar and consistent responses to heat hardening. Tested assays are therefore likely to measure the same underlying physiological trait and provide directly comparable estimates of heat tolerance. Regardless of this compliance, we discuss why and when static or dynamic assays may be more appropriate to investigate ectotherm heat tolerance.