Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T09:44:49.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wing shape as a potential discriminator of morphologically similar pest taxa within the Bactrocera dorsalis species complex (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2011

M.K. Schutze ,
A. Jessup  and
A.R. Clarke
M.K. Schutze*
Affiliation:
Discipline of Biogeosciences, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane 4000, Queensland, Australia Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity, LPO Box 5012, Bruce, A.C.T. 2617, Australia
A. Jessup
Affiliation:
Insect Pest Control Laboratory, Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
A.R. Clarke
Affiliation:
Discipline of Biogeosciences, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane 4000, Queensland, Australia Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity, LPO Box 5012, Bruce, A.C.T. 2617, Australia
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +61 7 3138 1535 E-mail: m.schutze@qut.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four morphologically cryptic species of the Bactrocera dorsalis fruit fly complex (B. dorsalis s.s., B. papayae, B. carambolae and B. philippinensis) are serious agricultural pests. As they are difficult to diagnose using traditional taxonomic techniques, we examined the potential for geometric morphometric analysis of wing size and shape to discriminate between them. Fifteen wing landmarks generated size and shape data for 245 specimens for subsequent comparisons among three geographically distinct samples of each species. Intraspecific wing size was significantly different within samples of B. carambolae and B. dorsalis s.s. but not within samples of B. papayae or B. philippinensis. Although B. papayae had the smallest wings (average centroid size=6.002 mm±0.061 SE) and B. dorsalis s.s. the largest (6.349 mm±0.066 SE), interspecific wing size comparisons were generally non-informative and incapable of discriminating species. Contrary to the wing size data, canonical variate analysis based on wing shape data discriminated all species with a relatively high degree of accuracy; individuals were correctly reassigned to their respective species on average 93.27% of the time. A single sample group of B. carambolae from locality ‘TN Malaysia’ was the only sample to be considerably different from its conspecific groups with regards to both wing size and wing shape. This sample was subsequently deemed to have been originally misidentified and likely represents an undescribed species. We demonstrate that geometric morphometric techniques analysing wing shape represent a promising approach for discriminating between morphologically cryptic taxa of the B. dorsalis species complex.

Keywords

canonical variate analysiscryptic speciesfruit fliesgeneralised Procrustes analysisinterspecific variationintraspecific variation
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 102 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 103 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adsavakulchai, S., Baimai, V. & Prachyabrued, W. (1998) Morphometric study using wing image analysis for identification of the Bactrocera dorsalis complex (Diptera: Tephritidae). The World Wide Web Journal of Biology 3, 6 pp. Available online at http://www.epress.com/w3jbio/vol3/Adsavakulchai/index.html.Google Scholar
Armstrong, K.F. & Ball, S.L. (2005) DNA barcodes for biosecurity: invasive species identification. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B: Biological Sciences 360, 1813–1823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armstrong, K.F. & Cameron, C.M. (1998) Species identification of tephritids across a broad taxonomic range using ribosomal DNA. pp. 703–710in Tan, K.H. (Ed.) Area-wide Control of Fruit Flies and Other Insect Pests. Pulau Pinang, Malaysia, Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.Google Scholar
Barik, T.K., Sahu, B. & Swain, V. (2009) A review on Anopheles culicifacies: from bionomics to control with special reference to Indian subcontinent. Acta Tropica 109, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birdsall, K., Zimmerman, E., Teeter, K. & Gibson, G. (2000) Genetic variation for the positioning of wing veins in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution and Development 2, 16–24.Google Scholar
Bitner-Mathé, B.C. & Klaczko, L.B. (1999) Heritability, phenotypic and genetic correlations of size and shape of Drosophila mediopunctata wings. Heredity 83, 688–696.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F.L. (1991) Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bouyer, J., Ravel, S., Dujardin, J.-P., De Meeüs, T., Vial, L., Thévenon, S., Guerrini, L., Sidibé, I. & Solano, P. (2007) Population structuring of Glossina palpalis gambiensis (Diptera: Glossinidae) according to landscape fragmentation in the Mouhoun River, Burkina Faso. Journal of Medical Entomology 44, 788–795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, A.R., Allwood, A., Chinajariyawong, A., Drew, R.A.I., Hengsawad, C., Jirasurat, M., Krong, C.K., Kritsaneepaiboon, S. & Vijaysegaran, S. (2001) Seasonal abundance and host use patterns of seven Bactrocera Macquart species (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 49, 207–220.Google Scholar
Clarke, A.R., Armstrong, K.F., Carmichael, A.E., Milne, J.R., Raghu, S., Roderick, G.K. & Yeates, D.K. (2005) Invasive phytophagous pests arising through a recent tropical evolutionary radiation: The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology 50, 293–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daly, H.V. (1985) Insect morphometrics. Annual Review of Entomology 30, 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K. (1998) The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation. pp. 57–75in Howard, D.J. & Berlocher, S.H. (Eds) Endless Forms: Species and Speciation. New York, USA, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Drake, A.G. & Klingenberg, C.P. (2008) The pace of morphological change: Historical transformation of skull shape in St. Bernard dogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 275, 71–76.Google Scholar
Drew, R.A.I. & Hancock, D.L. (1994) The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in Asia. Bulletin of Entomological Research Supplement Series, supplement no. 2, i–iii+1–68.Google Scholar
Drew, R.A.I., Tsuruta, K. & White, I.M. (2005) A new species of pest fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) from Sri Lanka and Africa. African Entomology 13, 149–154.Google Scholar
Drew, R.A.I., Raghu, S. & Halcoop, P. (2008) Bridging the morphological and biological species concepts: studies on the Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) complex (Diptera : Tephritidae : Dacinae) in South-east Asia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 93, 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dujardin, J.-P., Le Pont, F. & Baylac, M. (2003) Geographical versus interspecific differentiation of sand flies (Diptera: Psychodidae): a landmark data analysis. Bulletin of Entomological Research 93, 87–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyck, V.A., Hendrichs, J. & Robinson, A.S. (Eds) (2005) Sterile Insect Technique: Principles and Practice in Area-wide Integrated Pest Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer.Google Scholar
Fletcher, M.T. & Kitching, W. (1995) Chemistry of fruit flies. Chemical Reviews 95, 789–828.Google Scholar
Garros, C., Van Bortel, W., Trung, H.D., Coosemans, M. & Manguin, S. (2006) Review of the Minimus complex of Anopheles, main malaria vector in Southeast Asia: from taxonomic issues to vector control strategies. Tropical Medicine and International Health 11, 102–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilchrist, A.S. & Crisafulli, D.C.A. (2006) Using variation in wing shape to distinguish between wild and mass-reared individuals of Queensland fruit fly, (Bactrocera tryoni). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 119, 175–178.Google Scholar
Hooper, G.H.S. (1978) Effects of larval rearing temperature on the development of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 23, 222–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwahashi, O. (1999a) Distinguishing between the two sympatric species Bactrocera carambolae and B. papayae (Diptera: Tephritidae) based on aedeagal length. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 92, 639–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwahashi, O. (1999b) Distinguishing between two sympatric species Bactrocera occipitalis and B. philippinensis (Diptera: Tephritidae), based on aedeagal length. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 92, 182–187.Google Scholar
Khamis, F.M., Karam, N., Ekesi, S., De Meyer, M., Bonomi, A., Gomulski, L.M., Scolari, F., Gabrieli, P., Siciliano, P., Masiga, D., Kenya, E.U., Gasperi, G., Malacrida, A.R. & Gugielmino, C.R. (2009) Uncovering the tracks of a recent and rapid invasion: the case of the fruit fly pest Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Africa. Molecular Ecology 18, 4798–4810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitthawee, S. & Dujardin, J.-P. (2010) The geometric approach to explore the Bactrocera tau complex (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Thailand. Zoology 113, 243–249.Google Scholar
Klingenberg, C.P. (2011) MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources 11, 353–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krainacker, D.A., Carey, J.R. & Vargas, R.I. (1987) Effect of larval host on life history traits of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata. Oecologia 73, 583–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawson, A.E., McGuire, D.J., Yeates, D.K., Drew, R.A.I. & Clarke, A.R. (2003) DORSALIS: an interactive identification tool to fruit flies of the Bactrocera dorsalis complex. Multimedia CD-Rom, ISBN 0-909291-78-0.Google Scholar
Marsteller, S., Adams, D.C., Collyer, M.L. & Condon, M. (2009) Six cryptic species on a single species of host plant: morphometric evidence for possible reproductive character displacement. Ecological Entomology 34, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McInnis, D.O., Rendan, P., Jang, E., Sauers-Muller, A.V., Sugayama, R. & Malavasi, A. (1999) Interspecific mating of introduced, sterile Bactrocera dorsalis with wild B. carambolae (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Suriname: a potential case for cross-species sterile insect technique. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 92, 758–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michez, D., Meulemeester, T.D., Rasmont, P., Nel, A. & Patiny, S. (2009) New fossil evidence of the early diversification of bees: Paleohabropoda oudardi from the French Paleocene (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Anthophorini). Zoologica Scipta 38, 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muraji, M. & Nakahara, S. (2002) Discrimination among pest species of Bactrocera (Diptera: Tephritidae) based on PCR-RFLP of the mitochondrial DNA. Applied Entomology and Zoology 37, 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naeole, C.K. & Haymer, D.S. (2003) Use of oligonucleotide arrays for molecular taxonomic studies of closely related species in the oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) complex. Molecular Ecology Notes 3, 662–665.Google Scholar
O'Higgins, P. & Jones, N. (2006) Morphologika, tools for statistical shape analysis. York, UK, Hull York Medical School, University of York. Available online at http://sites.google.com/site/hymsfme/resources (accessed October 2009).Google Scholar
Paterson, H.E.H. (1985) The recognition concept of species. pp. 21–29in Vrba, E.S. (Ed.) Species and Speciation. Pretoria, South Africa, Transvaal Museum.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. (1999) Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. Journal of Classification 16, 197–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. (2008) tpsDig, digitize landmarks and outlines. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY, USA. Available online at http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/ (accessed October 2009).Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. & Marcus, L.F. (1993) A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8, 129–132.Google Scholar
Scheffer, S.J. & Lewis, M.L. (2001) Two nuclear genes confirm mitochondrial evidence of cryptic species within Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 94, 648–653.Google Scholar
Shaffer, H.B. & Thomson, R.C. (2007) Delimiting species in recent radiations. Systematic Entomology 56, 896–906.Google ScholarPubMed
Sheets, H.D. (2006) IMP Software series. New York, USA. Available online at http://www3.canisius.edu/~sheets/morphsoft.html (accessed October 2009).Google Scholar
van Sauers-Muller, A. (1991) An overview of the Carambola fruit fly Bactrocera species (Diptera: Tephritidae) found recently in Suriname. Florida Entomologist 74, 432–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, G.H. (2003) Insect Pest Management and Ecological Research. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wee, S.L. & Tan, K.H. (2005) Evidence of natural hybridization between two sympatric sibling species of Bactrocera dorsalis complex based on pheromone analysis. Journal of Chemical Ecology 31, 845–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, I.M. (1996) Fruit Fly Taxonomy: Recent Advances and New Approaches in Fruit Fly Pests: A World Assessment of their Biology and Management. Delray Beach, FL, USA, St Lucie Press.Google Scholar
White, I.M. & Elson-Harris, M. (1992) Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bionomics. Melksham, UK, CAB International, Redwork Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Yong, H.S. (1995) Genetic differentiation and relationships in five taxa of the Bactrocera dorsalis complex (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 85, 431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar