4.2 Article

Analysis of Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Olethreutinae) mitochondrial genomes in the context of a recent host range expansion

期刊

BMC ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12862-023-02139-5

关键词

False codling moth; Rosa; Polyphagy; Nextstrain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By analyzing the genetic, geographical, and host information of intercepted pest specimens, it was found that the false codling moth can opportunistically expand to attack new hosts, such as roses, in seven eastern sub-Saharan countries.
BackgroundThe false codling moth (FCM), Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick, 1913), is a significant pest of various important economic crops and is a EU quarantine pest. In the last decade the pest has been reported on Rosa spp. In this study we determined whether this shift occurred within specific FCM populations across seven eastern sub-Saharan countries or whether the species opportunistically switches to this novel host as it presents itself. To achieve this, we assessed the genetic diversity of complete mitogenomes of T. leucotreta specimens intercepted at import and analysed potential linkages with the geographical origin and host species.ResultsGenomic, geographical and host information were integrated into a T. leucotreta Nextstrain build which contains 95 complete mitogenomes generated from material intercepted at import between January 2013 and December 2018. Samples represented seven sub-Saharan countries and mitogenomic sequences grouped in six main clades.DiscussionIf host strains of FCM would exist, specialization from a single haplotype towards the novel host is expected. Instead, we find specimens intercepted on Rosa spp. in all six clades. The absence of linkage between genotype and host suggests opportunistic expansion to the new host plant. This underlines risks of introducing new plant species to an area as the effect of pests already present on the new plant might be unpredictable with current knowledge.

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

4.2
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