Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:23:50.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Molecular identification of two morphologically similar Eulecanium species: E. giganteum and E. kuwanai (Hemiptera: Coccidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2015

Jun Deng
Affiliation:
The Key Laboratory for Silviculture and Conservation of Ministry of Education, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
Hai-Bin Li
Affiliation:
The Key Laboratory for Silviculture and Conservation of Ministry of Education, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
Xu-Bo Wang
Affiliation:
The Key Laboratory for Silviculture and Conservation of Ministry of Education, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
Fang Yu
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
Yan-Zhou Zhang*
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
San-An Wu*
Affiliation:
The Key Laboratory for Silviculture and Conservation of Ministry of Education, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
*
2Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]).
2Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]).

Abstract

Most species of the genus Eulecanium Cockerell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) are important economic pests for ornamental plants and fruit trees. Two morphologically similar species, Eulecanium giganteum Shinji and E. kuwanai Kanda, are distributed mainly in China and are quite difficult to identify because of the paucity of distinguishing characteristics, which can only be observed in slide-mounted young, adult females. Furthermore, we demonstrate here that the species occur in sympatry and on many of the same host plants. Mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) and the D2–D3 expansion segments of 28S rDNA were used for accurate identification of these two Eulecanium species from 19 different locations in China. The average K2P distances of COI sequences were 0.47% in E. kuwanai and 0.32% in E. giganteum, and the interspecific divergences varied from 7.23% to 8.34%. Neighbour-joining (NJ) trees of COI and 28S rDNA revealed two distinct non-overlapping clusters, respectively. Meanwhile, “best close match” analysis also showed that 100% of individuals were classified successfully using COI and 28 S sequences. Differentiating between E. giganteum and E. kuwanai is challenging when using ecological and morphological traits. In contrast, identification using DNA diagnostics appears to be very effective, especially when slide-mounted specimens are difficult to obtain.

Type
Systematics & Morphology
Copyright
© Entomological Society of Canada 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

Subject editor: Amanda Roe

1

These authors contributed equally to this work.

References

Abd-Rabou, S., Shalaby, H., Germain, J.F., Ris, N., Kreiter, P., and Malausa, T. 2012. Identification of mealybug pest species (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Egypt and France, using a DNA barcoding approach. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 102: 515523.Google Scholar
Ball, S.L. and Armstrong, K.F. 2007. Using DNA barcodes to investigate the taxonomy of the New Zealand sooty beech scale insect. DOC Research and Development Series 287. Science and Technical Publishing, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Beltra, A., Soto, A., and Malausa, T. 2012. Molecular and morphological characterisation of Pseudococcidae surveyed on crops and ornamental plants in Spain. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 102: 165172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Dov, Y. 1993. A systematic catalogue of the soft scale insects of the world (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) with data on geographical distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.Google Scholar
Ben-Dov, Y. and Hodgson, C.J. 1997. Soft scale insects: their biology, natural enemies and control. Volume 7A. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Ben-Dov, Y., Miller, D.L., and Gibson, G.A.P. 2010. ScaleNet: a database of the scale insects of the world [online]. Available from http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/scalenet.htm [accessed 30 March 2013].Google Scholar
Borchsenius, N.S. 1955. New species of false-hard scales (Homoptera, Coccoidea, Coccidae) of the fauna of USSR and adjacent countries. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR, 18: 288303.Google Scholar
Danzig, E.M. 1980. Coccoids of the Far East USSR (Homoptera, Coccinea) with phylogenetic analysis of scale insects fauna of the world. Nauka, Leningrad, Russia. [In Russian].Google Scholar
Deng, J., Yu, F., Zhang, T.X., Hu, H.Y., Zhu, C.D., Wu, S.A., et al. 2012. DNA barcoding of six Ceroplastes species (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae) from China. Molecular Ecology Resources, 12: 791796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajibabaei, M., Janzen, D.H., Burns, J.M., Hallwachs, W., and Hebert, P.D.N. 2006. DNA barcodes distinguish species of tropical Lepidoptera. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103: 968971.Google Scholar
Hamon, A.B. and Williams, M.L. 1984. The soft scale insects of Florida (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae). Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas, 11: 1194.Google Scholar
Hebert, P.D.N., Penton, E.H., Burns, J.M., Janzen, D.H., and Hallwachs, W. 2004a. Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the Neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgerator . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101: 1481214817.Google Scholar
Hebert, P.D.N., Stoeckle, M.Y., Zemlak, T.S., and Francis, C.M. 2004b. Identification of birds through DNA barcodes. Public Library of Science Biology, 2: e312.Google Scholar
Hodgson, C.J. 1994. The scale insect family Coccidae: an identification manual to genera. CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Lee, W., Kim, H., Lim, J., Choi, H.R., Kim, Y., Kim, Y.S., et al. 2011. Barcoding aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) of the Korean Peninsula: updating the global data set. Molecular Ecology Resources, 11: 3237.Google Scholar
Li, J. and Xu, Q. 2013. Eulecanium gigantea occurrence and control measures. Shaanxi Forest Science Technology, 2: 8183.Google Scholar
Li, Z.W., Jia, W.J., Qiao, S.Z., Li, G.M., and Zhou, G.S. 2002. Study on biological characteristics and control techniques of Eulecanium giganteum . Ningxia Journal of Agriculture and Forestry Science and Technology, 4: 2526.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, N.T., Schander, C., and Willassen, E. 2007. Local scale DNA barcoding of bivalves (Mollusca): a case study. Zoologica Scripta, 36: 455463.Google Scholar
Park, D.S., Suh, S.J., Hebert, P.D.N., Oh, H.W., and Hong, K.J. 2011. DNA barcodes for two scale insect families, mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and armored scales (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Bulletin of Entomological Research, 101: 429434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pieterse, W., Muller, D.L., and Jansen van Vuuren, B. 2010. A molecular identification approach for five species of mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on citrus fruit exported from South Africa. African Entomology, 18: 2328.Google Scholar
Rung, A., Scheffer, S., Evans, G., and Miller, D. 2008. Molecular identification of two closely related species of mealybugs of the genus Planococcus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 101: 525532.Google Scholar
Sethusa, M.T., Millar, I.M., Yessoufou, K., Jacobs, A., van der Bank, M., and van der Bank, H. 2014. DNA barcode efficacy for the identification of economically important scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) in South Africa. African Entomology, 22: 257266.Google Scholar
Shi, Y.L. and , J.P. 1989. Studys on morphology and biology of Eulecanium kuwanai (Kanda). Journal of Shandong Agricultural University, 1: 1219.Google Scholar
Shinji, O. 1935. Two new species of non-armoured scale insects from north east Japan. Oyo-Dobutsugako Zasshi, 7: 288290. [In Japanese].Google Scholar
Tang, F.D. 1977. The scale insects of horticulture and forest of China: with description of 4 new genera and 13 new species. Institute of Gardening-Forestry Science, Shanxi, China.Google Scholar
Tang, F.D. 1991. The Coccidae of China. Shanxi United Universities Press, Taiyuan, China.Google Scholar
Wang, H.Z. 2000. A study on Eulecanium gigantea . Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 9: 8386.Google Scholar
Wang, Z.Q. 2001. Fauna Sinica (Insecta volume 22: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae, Eriococcidae, Coccidae, Asterolecaniidae, Lecanodiaspididae, Cerococcidae, Aclerdidae). Science Press, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Xie, Y.P. 1998. The scale insects of the forest and fruit trees in Shanxi of China. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Xie, Y.P., Xue, J.L., and Zheng, L.Y. 2006. Wax secretions of soft scale insects, their ultrastructure and chemical composition. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Zhang, X.Z. 2004. Study on biological characteristics of Eulecanium giganteum and its control. Shanxi Forestry Science and Technology, 1: 3536.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Deng supplementary material

Appendix A

Download Deng supplementary material(File)
File 29.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Deng supplementary material

Appendix B

Download Deng supplementary material(File)
File 299.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Deng supplementary material

Appendix C

Download Deng supplementary material(File)
File 24.8 KB