4.6 Article

Population genetic structure and ecological niche modelling of the leafhopper Hishimonus phycitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEST SCIENCE
卷 86, 期 2, 页码 173-183

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10340-012-0463-9

关键词

Hishimonus phycitis; Witches' Broom Disease of Lime; Microsatellite; Cytochrome c oxidase I; Niche modelling; Iran

资金

  1. Iranian Witches' Broom Disease of Lime Network (IWBDLN)
  2. Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Witches' broom disease of lime, caused by 'Candidatus Phytoplasma aurantifolia', is responsible for major losses of Mexican lime trees in Southern Iran, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. The causative phytoplasma is transmitted by the leafhopper, Hishimonus phycitis. We combined ecological niche modelling with environmental and genetic data for six populations of H. phycitis from Iran and one from Oman. The mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) gene and nine microsatellite DNA markers were used for the genetic analyses. Although the Oman population had specific haplotypes, the COI sequences were highly conserved among all populations studied. In contrast, the microsatellite data divided the populations from Iran and Oman into two separate clades. An analysis of molecular variance indicated a high level of variation within populations. The Mantel test showed no correlation between genetic and geographical distances. Gene flow values were small between the populations from Iran and north of Oman but significantly higher among the Iranian populations supporting the differentiation between Iran and Oman. In addition, we found that patterns of genetic divergence within Iranian populations were associated strongly with divergence in terms of their ecological niches. Data on six climatic variables, including elevation, were used to create ecological niche models. Our results suggest that the genetic differentiation of H. phycitis may be attributable to climatic conditions and/or geographical barriers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据