4.6 Article

Host plant phylogeny does not fully explain host choice and feeding preferences of Galerucella birmanica, a promising biological control herbivore of Trapa natans

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
卷 180, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2023.105201

关键词

Galerucella birmanica; Trapa natans; Host plant phylogeny; Phylogenetic centrifugal approach; Host specificity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that the leaf-beetle Galerucella birmanica only undergoes complete development on Trapa natans and Brasenia schreberi in North America. The feeding and oviposition preferences of G. birmanica cannot be fully explained by phylogenetic relatedness. Based on the low risk score of G. birmanica to Brasenia schreberi, widespread and safe biocontrol of T. natans in North America seems promising if approved by regulatory agencies.
The leaf-beetle Galerucella birmanica is a potential biocontrol herbivore for water chestnut, Trapa natans in North America. During our assessments of effectiveness and safety of G. birmanica in quarantine, we found a narrow fundamental host range with complete development only possible on all T. natans morphospecies present in North America and Brasenia schreberi. Phylogenetic relatedness did not fully explain feeding and oviposition preferences of G. birmanica in no-choice or multiple-choice trials. Instead, feeding and oviposition on non-target plants appears better explained by host-associations of congeneric Galerucella species, underscoring the impor-tance of including additional factors in selecting host-specificity test plant species. To further gauge potential risk to B. schreberi, we used a comparative performance metric proposed by Paynter et al. (2015) and found G. birmanica scored low, further indicating low risk to B. schreberi. Our findings suggest that widespread and safe biocontrol of T. natans in North America appears promising if G. birmanica is granted release approval by reg-ulatory agencies.

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