Wolbachia has been introduced into Aedes aegypti mosquitoes to control the spread of arboviruses, such as dengue, chikungunya and Zika. Studies showed that certain Wolbachia strains (such as wMel) reduce replication of dengue viruses in the laboratory, prompting the release of mosquitoes carrying the bacterium into the field, where vectorial capacity can be realistically assessed in relation to native non-carriers. Here we apply a new analysis to two published datasets, and show that wMel increases the mean and the variance in Ae. aegypti susceptibility to dengue infection when introgressed into Brazil and Vietnam genetic backgrounds. In the absence of other processes, higher mean susceptibility should lead to enhanced viral transmission. The increase in variance, however, widens the basis for selection imposed by unexplored natural forces, retaining the potential for reducing transmission overall.

Most theoretical studies have explored the evolution of plasticity when the environment, and therefore the optimal trait value, varies in time or space. When the environment varies in time and space, we show that genetic adaptation to Markovian temporal fluctuations depends on the between‐generation autocorrelation in the environment in exactly the same way that genetic adaptation to spatial fluctuations depends on the probability of philopatry. This is because both measure the correlation in parent‐offspring environments and therefore the effectiveness of a genetic response to selection. If the capacity to genetically respond to selection is stronger in one dimension (e.g., space), then plasticity mainly evolves in response to fluctuations in the other dimension (e.g., time). If the relationships between the environments of development and selection are the same in time and space, the evolved plastic response to temporal fluctuations is useful in a spatial context and genetic differentiation in space is reduced. However, if the relationships between the environments of development and selection are different, the optimal level of plasticity is different in the two dimensions. In this case, the plastic response that evolves to cope with temporal fluctuations may actually be maladaptive in space, resulting in the evolution of hyperplasticity or negative plasticity. These effects can be mitigated by spatial genetic differentiation that acts in opposition to plasticity resulting in counter‐gradient variation. These results highlight the difficulty of making space‐for‐time substitutions in empirical work but identify the key parameters that need to be measured in order to test whether space‐for‐time substitutions are likely to be valid.

No abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.