Next Article in Journal
Genetic Variation in the Pallas’s Cat (Otocolobus manul) in Zoo-Managed and Wild Populations
Next Article in Special Issue
Phylogenetic Trends in the Dissymmetrisation of Genitalia in Hadenini (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae)
Previous Article in Journal
Dissimilarity among Species and Higher Taxa of Amphibians in a Hotspot of Biodiversity and Endemism in the Neotropics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Co-Evolution of Iolana Blues with Their Host Plants and the Higher Phylogeny of Subtribe Scolitantidina (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 16
Issue 4
10.3390/d16040227
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring Morphological Population Variability: Host Plant and Habitat Dependency in the Protected Moth Gortyna borelii (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae)

by
László Rákosy
1,2,*,
Mihai Alexandru Martin
3,
Geanina Magdalena Sitar
4,
Andrei Crișan
5 and
Cristian Sitar
6,7,*
1
Departament Taxonomy and Ecology, Babes-Bolyai University, Clinicilor 5-7, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Forestry Faculty, Ștefan cel Mare University, Universității 13, 720229 Suceava, Romania
3
Doctoral School in Integrative Biology, Faculty of Biology and Geology, Babes-Bolyai University, Kogălniceanu 1, 400084 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
4
Doctoral School “Education, Reflection, Development”, Faculty of Psychology and Sciences of Education, Babes-Bolyai University, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
5
Romanian Lepidopterological Society, Republicii 48, 400015 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
6
Zoological Museum, Babes-Bolyai University, Clinicilor 5-7, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
7
Department of Cluj, Emil Racovita Institute of Speleology, Clinicilor 5, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2024, 16(4), 227; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16040227
Submission received: 5 March 2024 / Revised: 5 April 2024 / Accepted: 6 April 2024 / Published: 9 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Speciation, Phylogenetics and Taxonomy of Lepidoptera)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this paper, we discuss the evolutionary implications of the correlation between different species of Peucedanum plants and the distribution of Gortyna borelii moth populations in Romania. We highlight geographic separation and isolation among these populations due to anthropogenic landscape fragmentation, which hinders genetic exchange. A geometric morphometric analysis was utilized to visualize and compare the morphometric variations in relation to the environmental variables, particularly the host plant. Additionally, the distribution of G. borelii populations across Europe and in Romania that are correlated with the host plant was analyzed. The significant morphological and morphometric differences between the analyzed populations support our working hypothesis, according to which the use of different Peucedanum species by the larvae of G. borelii leads to an intraspecific diversification correlated with the host plant species. The newly discovered population of G. borelii in Romania holds substantial conservation importance, necessitating protection measures, including demarcating habitat areas and raising awareness among stakeholders. G. borelii is a protected species at the European level (Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, Appendices II and IV), considered endangered due to the isolation of its populations and anthropogenic pressures exerted through agricultural practices. Understanding the impact of agricultural practices on their habitat is crucial for effective management strategies. Overall, this study sheds light on the complex interplay between ecological adaptation, host plant specialization, and speciation dynamics in phytophagous insects, emphasizing the importance of conservation efforts to preserve G. borelii populations and their habitats.

1. Introduction

Lepidoptera represents the greatest diversification of herbivorous insects, including many species of borers, leafminers, gall-formers, and inquilines [1]. Endophagy arose early in the evolution of Lepidoptera species and may have promoted their later dispersal [1,2]. The evolutionary history and ecological strategies of Lepidoptera highlight the importance of understanding their diverse roles within ecosystems and their ability to adapt to various environmental conditions.
The macroevolutionary patterns driving this diversification, alongside the roles of chemical ecology and natural selection on populations within and between different community types, have been extensively explored [3].
The diversification pattern in Lepidoptera and other insects has often been explained by host plant specialization [4,5,6]. Ecological adaptation and specialization encompass various factors such as competition, predation, parasitism, and habitat adaptability, all intricately tied to resource distribution and abundance.
An exemplary instance illustrating such ultra-specialization within isolated populations, where diversification is driven by ecological adaptation, is observed in Gortyna borelii Pierret, 1837. This species serves as a compelling subject for morphological and morphometric studies. With its geographically isolated populations and adaptation to different host plants within the Peucedanum genus, this species presents as an intriguing subject for further morphological and morphometric investigations. Such studies hold significant potential for illuminating the early stages of intraspecific diversification and incipient speciation.
The fisher’s estuarian moth, Gortina borelii, (Figure 1A,B) is a Noctuidae (Tribus Apameini) protected in the EU (Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, Appendices II and IV), and its population is currently declining in Europe. In the Red List of Romania, G. borelii has been assessed as NT at the national level and VU in some regions [7].
The species is found in several smaller, more or less isolated areas in Spain, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Russia (north of the Caucasus) [8,9,10].
The biology and living conditions of G. borelii have been described more or less accurately in several publications [8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. G. borelii is considered oligophagous on Peucedanum sp. [8,10], but it is recorded as locally monophagous [22].
Since molecular data indicate an approximately 29-million-year-old origin for the Apameini tribe and an evolution correlated with the massive development of the Poaceae family [26], it can be assumed that endophagous species diverged from this group through adaptive radiation more than 25 million years ago.
Oviposition usually takes place on dried grasses, between the stem and the leaf that is close to it [17,24,27]. The eggs, which are flat in shape, are laid in rows resembling strings, with the female employing her outstretched ovipositor for distribution [17,24,25]. After hatching, the newly emerged caterpillars must traverse several meters to reach their food source [17,24,25]. The preimaginal stages and biology of the species were first comprehensively documented by König [12,13] in southwest Romania.
The selection of oviposition sites and the subsequent development of larvae on various host plants play pivotal roles in determining the survival rates of G. borelii [28,29,30]. These factors greatly influence the species’ ability to thrive and reproduce successfully in different ecological contexts.
In Lepidoptera, the transition to endophagy, internal feeding, and potentially the exploitation of unoccupied feeding niches likely played a crucial role in the success of early taxa [31]. Endophagous species have been shown to access superior food sources through internal feeding [32,33,34]. Additionally, residing within plant tissues may confer other advantages, such as protection from pathogens and predators, although this hypothesis is sometimes debated [35]. Nevertheless, endophagous insects enjoy several benefits, including reduced competition, protection against natural enemies [36,37], decreased risk of desiccation due to a microenvironment with physiological advantages, and access to a higher quality diet [38]. These factors collectively contribute to the ecological success and evolutionary adaptability of endophagous Lepidoptera species.
Adaptability to host plants stands out as one of the most influential evolutionary forces driving ecological speciation in phytophagous insects [39,40]. Recent advancements have led to the identification of adaptive insect genes potentially responsible for host plant adaptation [41,42,43]. These genes encode various proteins, including chemosensory proteins for plant detection, oral secretion proteins to counter plant defenses, digestive enzymes for plant molecule breakdown, and detoxification proteins to counteract plant secondary metabolites [42]. Notably, these genes often exhibit accelerated adaptive evolutionary rates in phytophagous insects [44,45]. Prior studies have also demonstrated speciation processes with gene flow driven by ecologically divergent selection associated with the use of new host plants [41,46,47]. For instance, genomic differentiation has been observed between the maize strain and the rice strain in Spodoptera frugiperda (Noctuidae) [48]. These findings underscore the complex interplay between ecological adaptation, host plant specialization, and speciation dynamics in phytophagous insects.
The process of allopatric speciation, in which species split into different strains that become reproductively isolated and evolutionarily independent, is relatively well known and documented [49,50]. Host specialization is a well-documented process that leads to intraspecific diversity, sympatric isolation, and speciation, especially in phytophagous insects [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]
The evolution of host specificity in Lepidoptera species is probably strongly influenced by plant volatile organic matter [4,59].
In evolutionary terms, the first endophagous insects probably had selective advantages, as they were less likely to be killed by predators, parasitoids, and pathogens, which may have favored the evolution of endophagy [60,61]. Endophagous insects avoid ingesting plant defense chemicals and/or structures, which are usually concentrated in the cuticle and epidermis [62]. Evading plant defenses and feeding on the most nutrient-rich plant parts resulted in a higher feeding efficiency and performance of endophages compared to ectophages [34,35]. Conquering new foraging niches and food resources in a limited foraging space led to better nutrition. Insects are able to manipulate plants to concentrate nutrients and reduce plant defenses in their food source, leading to higher insect performances [34,63]
In many parts of Europe, G. borelii faces significant threats and is classified as endangered or threatened with extinction. Regionally, it is not uncommon for populations to become extinct or lost entirely, rendering it one of the most endangered noctuid species in Europe. This precarious status underscores the urgent need for conservation efforts to safeguard the species and its habitats.
The primary threat to G. borelii is the decline of its food source, largely attributed to habitat destruction. Many of the sites in the Banat region that were documented by F. König to the 1970s have been lost to human intervention, particularly through desiccation efforts. As a result, the remaining populations are dwindling in size and becoming increasingly isolated, exacerbating the species’ vulnerability to extinction.
In the current study, our objective is to investigate the morphometric variations among individuals of G. borelii originating from populations that utilize different Peucedanum species as host plants. We aim to highlight the evolutionary significance of the correlation between various Peucedanum species and the distribution patterns of G. borelii populations. Additionally, we emphasize the discovery of a new population of G. borelii, which holds considerable importance for the species’ conservation efforts in Romania. Through our research, we seek to contribute valuable insights into the ecological and evolutionary dynamics of this endangered noctuid species.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Habitat Description

In Romania, G. borelii inhabits three distinct habitat types. The first and most widespread habitat consists of alluvial river plains, where the food plant Peucedanum officinale thrives in a range of conditions, from wet to dry environments occasionally subject to flooding. These habitats encompass meadows and tall forb communities, particularly during the spring season. This habitat type corresponds to populations found in southwest, west, and northwest Romania, including the historical provinces of Banat, Crisana, and Satu Mare (Figure 1C).
Another habitat where G. borelii is found is on dry and semi-dry slopes within the Transylvanian hills. Here, the species has adapted to utilize Peucedanum ruthenicum (syn. tauricum) as its host plant. These slopes are characterized by xerophilous fringes, which are located on steep dry slopes and abandoned vine terraces, forming what is commonly referred to as a “steppe heath” habitat. The plant communities in this habitat type include Pruno spinosae-Crataegetum and Prunetum tenellae, with characteristic species such as Prunus spinosa, Crataegus monogyna, and Prunus tenella (Amygdalus nana). This habitat typically experiences an average annual rainfall of less than 500 mm/year. The specific area corresponding to this habitat type is Viisoara, designated as the Natura 2000 site ROSCI0040 (Figure 1D).
The third habitat type, which unfortunately remains relatively understudied, is characterized by rupicolous grasslands situated on the limestone plateau of the Domogled Mountain in Băile Herculane at altitudes ranging from 700 to 1000 m (Figure 1F). This habitat features a dry, rocky terrain with a sub-Mediterranean climate. The caterpillar host plant in this environment can only be P. longifolium [13,18], as P. officinale, the common host plant in other habitats, is absent in this area. A further exploration of this habitat type could yield valuable insights into the ecological preferences and adaptations of G. borelii populations.
The spots identified in eastern and southeastern Romania with records of G. borelii by Baranyi et al. [9] are incorrect. Contrary to those claims, G. borelii has never been reported in this particular region of the country [7,64]. Clarification regarding the accuracies of distribution records is crucial for maintaining the integrity of scientific knowledge regarding the species’ range.

2.2. Plant Measurement

We conducted measurements of Peucedanum stem thicknesses in three distinct locations—Apahida, Viișoara, and Cefa (Crișana)—where the presence of G. borelii is documented (Figure 1C–E). To determine the average thickness of Peucedanum stems, measurements were taken 5 cm above the ground level using a caliper. A total of 50 plants were measured at each location. The mean values were calculated using the ANOVA test to analyze the data and assess potential variations in the stem thickness among the different locations.

2.3. Distribution Analysis of G. borelii Populations Correlated with the Peucedanum Species

Following the same methodology and using information from [9,10], we delimited the remaining G. borelii populations in Europe based on the different Peucedanum species on which they live.
We analysed the distribution of G. borelii populations in Romania correlated with the different Peucedanum species on which the larvae of these populations live, three specific types of habitats are highlighted.

2.4. Morphometric Analyses

The specimens of G. borreli that are displayed and preserved in the Rakosy and Sitar collections were photographed with a Canon EOS 70D camera using a Canon 100 mm macro lens (Figure 2).
The digital photographs were converted to the TPS format using the software TPSUtil, 1.4 version, which allows them to be processed in a system of coordinates. Landmarks [65] were placed with the program TPSDig2 (http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/soft-utility.html, accessed on 5 January 2024); the placement was at the base of the wing and on the intersection of wing veins with the wing edge (Figure 3). A Principal Component Analysis was used to show a general direction of variation within a group by using the Principal Components that account for most of the variation: in this case, PC1 and PC2. The differences among populations was tested using a Canonical Variance Analysis (CVA), and the statistical differences were calculated using a Permutation Test, as our values might not follow a normal distribution, and this test can reach a conclusion without assuming any distribution [66]. The Procrustes fit, PCA, CVA and Permutation Test were performed using the program MorphoJ (https://morphometrics.uk/MorphoJ_page.html, accessed on 5 January 2024).
The following abbreviations were used: AP = Apahinda, VI = Viișoara, and CR = Cefa (Banat).

3. Results

3.1. Study Sites with New Population Identified in Romania

The population in Cefa (Bihor), like the population in Banat, uses P. officinale as a host plant. The species’ habitat is located in a clearing in the northern part of the Rădvani forest. The habitat is a flat meadow surrounded by an oak forest, where P. officinale plants abound. The Rădvani forest is part of the Cefa Natural Park and covers an area of approximately 3 hectares. This forest is a wetland area of great importance for birdlife, providing feeding and nesting conditions for a significant number of bird species that are protected at the European level (Figure 1C).
The population of Viisoara, whose caterpillars live on P. ruthenicum (syn. tauricum), is located in a protected area (“The Hill of Butterflies”) that has been integrated into the Natura 2000 site “Coasta Lunii” (ROSCI0040). The steep dry slopes and the host plant are endangered by the former afforestation with Scots pine (Pinus silvestris) and common ash (Frasinus excelsior). The mild level of sheep grazing that sometimes takes place here does not actually do any harm as long as the sheep are not driven out from October to May (Figure 1D).
The newly discovered site next to Cluj is located at the edge of a former saline lake, not far from Apahida. On the northern slope of the hill, there is a strong population of P. officinale. In the valley area, there is a salt steppe with Limonium gmelinii, Aster tripolium, and other halobiont or halotolerant plant species. From May to August, the noctuid Discestra dianthi hungarica Wagner, 1930 flies here in large numbers (Figure 1E).

3.2. Host Plant Analyses

The average thickness of the host plant depending on the location is presented in Table 1.

3.3. Distribution Analysis of G. borelii Populations Correlated with the Peucedanum Species

We delimited the G. borelii populations in Europe based on the different Peucedanum species on which they live (Figure 4A). We have thus obtained an interesting geographic pattern by which the trophic forms of G. borelii are also differentiated geographically. Thus, the populations in central France feed on Peucedanum gallicum; those in northeastern Spain, southern/eastern France, and northern Italy on P. officinale; and those in Corsica on P. paniculatum. The populations in the United Kingdom and Germany feed on P. officinale, as well as in Hungary, northeastern Croatia, northern Serbia, southwestern, western, and northwestern Romania, Poland, and Ukraine. We do not know the hostplant from the records for Bulgaria, Crimea, and Russia.

Distribution Analysis of G. borelii Populations in Romania Correlated with the Different Peucedanum Species

The analysis of the distribution of G. borelii populations in Romania correlated with the different species of Peucedanum reveals three particular situations, which highlight three specific types of habitats (Figure 4B):
  • The habitat for G. borelii whose larvae feed on P. officinale is characterized by clay loam soils, which are often slightly salty, wet, or even very wet in the spring and dry in the summer. This type of habitat corresponds to the populations in the west and north-west of the country, also extending into Hungary. Here, we also include the Transylvanian habitat near Apahida.
  • The much drier, moisture-deficient habitat on the foothills near Campia Turzii (Viișoara) is where the G. borelii population lives on P. ruthenicum (syn. tauricum). Individuals of this population are much smaller in size compared to individuals of populations feeding on P. officinale.
  • The calcareous habitat on Mount Domogled (Băile Herculane) is where the population of G. borelii feeds on P. longifolium. Although P. rochelianum is also present on Mount Domogled, we have no information confirming its use by G. borelii larvae.

3.4. Morphometric Analysis

A total of 87 specimens of G. borelii were analyzed, for which the forewings were measured. Both the left wing and the right wing were measured. Damaged specimens that did not allow for the placement of landmarks were removed. This resulted in a total of 166 valid measurements.
By using the linear measurements of the wings, we could calculate the average length and width of the wings (Table 2).
For the geometric morphometrics analysis, we used the Procrustes fit, which gave us the mean point of each landmark and showed the overall spread of the landmarks from each specimen (Figure 5) Next, we used a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to determine the general direction of variation using the PCs that cumulatively covered most of the variance (Table 3) (Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8).
We followed with a permutation test, using 10,000 permutation rounds for Procrustes distances among groups; all results were statistically significant (Table 4). Finally, we performed a Canonical Variance Analysis to illustrate the shape differences between the populations (Figure 9).

4. Discussion

4.1. Correlation between the Different Species of Peucedanum and the Distribution of G. borelii Populations, with Implications in Intraspecific Diversification

The diversification of the phytophagous insects’ host plants is closely corelated with intraspecific diversity. Thus, adaptation to new plant species used as host plants in the larval stage determines the specialized relationships between partners of different sexes within the species. Consequently, there is a reduction in the gene flow, leading to intraspecific diversification correlated with the host plant species [68,69,70,71].
This can lead to speculation about the tendency for reproductive isolation. Reproductive isolation through reduced gene flow, together with geographic isolation, leads to the emergence of adaptive radiation, characterized by the diversification of species through the transition from one host plant to another. This is a well-known and extensively documented speciation process, particularly among phytophagous insects [51,52,53,71,72,73].
Furthermore, genomic differentiation occurs early in the intraspecific diversification process and may even expedite this process [74]. The situation of G. borelii populations may be analogous to that of the butterflies Zerynthia polyxena and Z. cassandra, which feed on different species of Aristolochia [28,75].
At the European level, specificity for a particular species of Peucedanum is observed depending on the geographic region. For instance, G. borelii populations in central and northern France utilize P. gallicum as their host plant, forming a distinct cluster. Populations in Corsica form a separate group and use P. paniculatum as their host plant (Figure 4A).
The populations utilizing P. officinale as their host plant group into three distinct clusters: populations from the United Kingdom form one cluster together with those from Germany, and a second cluster is formed by populations from northwestern Spain, southern France, and northern Italy. The populations from central and western Transylvania (Romania) and the Pannonian Plain (Hungary) form the third cluster.
The Bulgarian populations, alongside those from southwestern Romania, utilize P. longifolium as their host plant. This species is adapted to calcareous soils with low humidity.
A third species of Peucedanum used as a host plant by G. borelii in Romania is P. ruthenicum. This third species is also adapted to well-drained, dry habitats, on clayey–sandy soil. Due to their ecological preferences, the sizes of P. ruthenicum plants are evidently smaller than those of P. officinale (Table 1).
G. borelii populations adapted to the three Peucedanum species exhibit clear geographic separation and isolation in Romania (Figure 4B). Despite the relatively short distance of approximately 35 km between the populations of Apahida and Viișoara, the anthropogenic fragmentation of the landscape over the past 400–500 years has hindered genetic exchange between these trophically differentiated populations. As a result, under the present conditions, it is unlikely that these populations can interbreed or exchange genetic information.
The incipient intraspecific diversification through host races has been documented and demonstrated in Lepidoptera species through both classical and recent studies [50,72,76,77]. The notion that adaptation to the host plant can play a decisive and repeatable role in the early stages of speciation was demonstrated by [39] using stick insects. Host-specific differentiation may lead to divergence in the adaptation to complex morphological and behavioral traits.

4.2. Morphological and Morphometric Differences in Relation to the Host Plant

The use of geometric and traditional morphometric measurements has proven successful in many studies of wing shape variation among Lepidoptera species over the years [78,79,80,81,82,83,84], and these methods were also applied in our study.
The morphological and morphometric analyses of the wing dimensions and shape in G. borelii show significant differences among the three populations of G. borelii analyzed (Table 2) (Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8).
A cluster analysis of the morphological distances revealed that the wing shape varies statistically significantly within populations feeding on different Peucedanum species. The visualization of the canonical variate analysis scatterplot did not demonstrate complete separation among plant species for the G. borelii populations. However, the canonical variable explained 90% of the total variance.
These differences are strongly influenced by the host plant (P. tauricum) available in Viișoara. The reduced dimensions and significantly smaller stem thickness in P. tauricum compared to P. officinale (Table 1) have constrained the population of G. borelii to adapt by significantly reducing their wingspan. The size differences between the two plant species are closely correlated with the environmental conditions, ecological processes, and selective pressures [85].
The 400–500 years of isolation of the population from Viișoara are also reflected in the modifications observed in the wing shape, as evidenced by the permutation tests for the Procrustes and illustrated through Canonical Variance Analysis (Figure 9).
It remains to be seen whether genetic analyses for the three ecological forms of G. borelii, adapted to three different Peucedanum species, will reveal incipient but clear intraspecific diversification, and subsequently, incipient speciation processes.
The evidence of these initial phases of intraspecific differentiation and incipient speciation holds significant importance, offering the prospect of deeper exploration using molecular analyses. Publishing these detailed and valuable observations is essential for future studies.

4.3. The Newly Discovered Population of G. borelii and Its Importance for the Conservation of the Species

The newly discovered population of G. borelii from Apahida is of significant importance for the conservation of the species in Romania (Figure 1E). The hill with P. officinale and the salt steppe belong to the Natura 2000 site Suatu–Cojocna–Crairât (ROSCI0238) and should therefore be protected. G. borelii is not included in the standard list of this Natura 2000 site [86]. Therefore, there are no specific protection measures in the site management plan. The grassland is partly used as a meadow and partly as a pasture for sheep grazing. Agricultural land is expanding year after year to the detriment of P. officinale areas. No P. officinale suitable for the caterpillars was found in the pasture. The small meadows are mown once a year in July. A second cut takes place irregularly at the end of August–beginning of September. Uneven areas are left unmown, which favors the preservation of the caterpillar host plant, and thus, the moth.
The conservation measures required to preserve this newfound population include the following:
To mitigate the threats faced by G. borelii and its habitat, several conservation measures can be implemented. One strategy involves demarcating areas with P. officinale and imposing restrictions on certain agricultural activities, such as grazing, which can result in the partial or complete destruction of these plants. Although not directly consumed by animals, grazing can still negatively impact the habitat through the trampling of plants. Additionally, findings from mowing experiments, such as those conducted by [22], suggest that cutting annually in either August or November can detrimentally affect the moth abundance.
Raising awareness within the local community is another crucial aspect of species conservation. Educating stakeholders about the importance of preserving G. borelii and its habitat can lead to greater support for conservation efforts and encourage responsible land management practices.
Furthermore, investigating the impacts of common agricultural practices in Romania, such as cleaning meadows by burning, on Peucedanum plants is essential. While it is possible that the endogenous life of G. borelii larvae provides some protection against fire, further research is needed to fully understand this aspect and to develop appropriate management strategies that balance conservation goals with agricultural needs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.R. and C.S.; sample collection and measurements, L.R., G.M.S. and C.S.; methodology, M.A.M., A.C., and L.R.; morphometry analysis, M.A.M.; map generation A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.R. and C.S.; writing—review and editing, G.M.S. and C.S.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted with the approval of ANANP (National Agency for Protected Areas—Romania), under the registration number 694/STCJ/13.12.2023.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The discovery of the new population of G. borelii near Apahida was made possible thanks to field activities carried out as part of the EU-funded Horizon 2020 project SHOWCASE and Safeguard and the LIFE project “Metamorphosis”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Powell, S.K.; Spence, J.; Bharathi, M.; Gatehouse, A.J.; Gatehouse, R.M.A. Immunohistochemical and developmental studies to elucidate the mechanism of action of the snowdrop lectin on the rice brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal). J. Insect. Physiol. 1998, 44, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Menken, S.B.; Boomsma, J.J.; Van Nieukerken, E.J. Large-scale evolutionary patterns of host plant associations in the lepidoptera. Evolution 2010, 64, 1098–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Agrawal, A.A.; Zhang, X. The evolution of coevolution in the study of species interactions. Evolution 2021, 75, 1594–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Forister, L.M.; Dyer, A.L.; Singer, S.M.; Stireman, O.J.; Lill, T.J. Revisiting the evolution of ecological specialization, with emphasison insect–plant interactions. Ecology 2012, 93, 981–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hardy, N.B.; Kaczvinsky, C.; Bird, G.; Normark, B.B. Whatwe don’t know about diet-breadth evolution in herbivorous insects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2020, 51, 103–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Braga, P.M.; Janz, N. Host repertoires and changing insect–plant interactions. Ecol. Entomol. 2021, 46, 1241–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rákosy, L.; Corduneanu, C.; Crisan, A.; Dinca, V.; Kovács, S.; Stanescu, M.; Szekely, L. Red List of Lepidoptera of Romania; Rakosy, L., Ed.; Presa Universitara Clujeană: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2021; p. 187. ISBN 978-606-37-1126-8. [Google Scholar]
  8. Zilli, A.; Ronkay, L.; Fibiger, M. Noctuidae Europaeae: Apameini; Entomological Press: Faringdon, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. Baranyi, T.; Varga, Z. Gortyna borelii (Pierret, 1837)—Nagy Szikibagolylepke. In The Living Heritage of the Pannonian Region—The Natura 2000 Network (in Hungarian); Varga, Z., Ed.; Dél-Nyírség-Bihari Tájvédelmi és Kulturális Értékõrzõ Egyesület: Debrecen, Hungary, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bator, D.; Guilloton, J.A. Contribution à la cartographie de Gortyna borelii (Pierret, 1837) en France. Alexanor 2015, 27, 7–87. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kovács, L. The Macrolepidoptera characteristic to our sandz district. Ann. Hist. Nat. Musei. Natl. Hung. 1955, 6, 327–342. [Google Scholar]
  12. König, F. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Lebensweise von Hydraecia leucographa Bkh. Folia Entomol. Hung. 1959, 12, 481–493. [Google Scholar]
  13. König, F. Erfolgreiche Eizuchten von Hydroecia (Hydraecia) leucographa Bkh. Entomol. Z. 1960, 70, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ippolito, R.; Parenzan, P. Contributo alla conoscenza della Gortyna Ochs. Europe. Entomol. 1978, 14, 159–202. [Google Scholar]
  15. Goater, B. Noctuidae (partim). In The Moths and Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland; Heath, J., Emmet, A.M., Eds.; Harley Books: London, UK, 1983; Volume 10, pp. 36–413. [Google Scholar]
  16. Steiner, A. Bemerkungen über Gortyna borelii (Pierret, 1837) in Südwestdeutschland (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Entomol. Z. Mit Insektenbörse 1985, 95, 161–176. [Google Scholar]
  17. Steiner, A. Gortyna borelii. In Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs 7 Nachtfalter; Ebert, G., Ed.; V.E Ulmer Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 1998; pp. 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gyulai, P. Notes on the distribution of Gortyna borelii lunata in the Carpathian Basin. Nota Lepid. 1987, 10, 54–60. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gibson, C. The conservation of Gortyna borelii lunata Freyer (Lep.:Noctuidae). Entomol. Rec. J. Var. 2000, 112, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hill, J.; Ringwood, Z.; Rouse, T. Distribution and status of Gortyna borelii Pierret ssp. lunata Freyer (Lep.: Noctuidae) in south-east England. Entomol. Rec. J. Var. 2002, 114, 49–53. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ringwood, Z.; Gardiner, T.; Steiner, A.; Hill, J. Comparison of factors influencing the habitat characteristics of Gortyna borelii (Noctuidae) and its larval food plant Peucedanum officinale in Britain and Germany. Nota Lepid. 2002, 25, 23–38. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ringwood, Z.; Hill, J.; Gibson, C. Conservation management of Gortyna borelii lunata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the United Kingdom. J. Insect Conserv. 2004, 8, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Biewald, G. Gortyna borelii lunata Freyer, 1838. In Das Europäische Schutzgebietssystem Natura 2000. Ökologie und Verbreitung von Arten der FFH-Richtlinie in Deutschland. Band 3: Arten der EU-Osterweiterung; Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz; Petersen, B., Ellwanger, G., Eds.; Landwirtschaftsverlag: Bonn, Germany, 2005; Volume 69, pp. 128–138. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sum, S. Gortyna borelii Pierret, 1837 (Nagy szikibagoly). In Natura 2000 Species and Habitats in Hungary; Haraszthy, L., Ed.; Pro Vértes Közalapitvány: Csákvár, Hungary, 2014; pp. 351–359. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  25. Berquier, C.; Mothiron, P.M.-C. Andrei-Ruiz. Bilan synthétique sur la connaissance de la Noctuelle des Peucédans en France Gortyna borelii (Pierret, 1827). Avancement des connaissances sur la répartition, l’écologie et l’état de conservation de Gorytna borelii en Corse (Lepidoptera Noctuidae Noctuinae Apameini). Alexanor 2016, 27, 95–112. [Google Scholar]
  26. Toussaint, E.F.A.; Condamine, F.L.; Kergoat, G.J.; Capdevielle-Dulac, C.; Barbut, J.; Silvain, J.F.; Le Ru, B.P. Palaeoenvironmental Shifts Drove the Adaptive Radiation of a Noctuid Stemborer Tribe (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Apameini) in the Miocene. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e41377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ringwood, Z.K.; Hill, J.; Gibson, C. Observations on the ovipositing strategy of Gortyna borelii Pierret, 1837 (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) in a British population. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 2002, 48, 89–99. [Google Scholar]
  28. Cini, A.; Bordoni, A.; Ghisolfi, G.; Lazzaro, L.; Platania, L.; Pasquali, L.; Negroni, R.; Benetello, F.; Coppi, A.; Zanichelli, F.; et al. Host plant selection and differential survival on two Aristolochia, L. species in an insular population of Zerynthia cassandra. J. Insect Conserv. 2019, 23, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. García-Barros, E.; Fartmann, T. Butterfly oviposition: Sites, behaviour and modes. In Ecology of Butterflies in Europe; Settele, J., Shreeve, T., Konvička, M., van Dick, H., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 29–42. [Google Scholar]
  30. Gripenberg, S.; Mayhew, J.P.; Parnell, M.; Roslin, T. A meta-analysis of preference–performance relationships in phytophagous insects. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Regier, J.C.; Mitter, C.; Kristensen, N.P.; Davis, D.R.; Van Nieukerken, E.J.; Rota, J.; Simonsen, J.T.; Mitter, K.T.; Kawahara, A.Y.; Yen, S.-H.; et al. A molecular phylogeny for the oldest (nonditrysian) lineages of extant L epidoptera, with implications for classification, comparative morphology and life-history evolution. Syst. Entomol. 2015, 40, 671–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Diamond, S.E.; Blair, C.P.; Abrahamson, W.G. Testing the nutrition hypothesis for the adaptive nature of insect galls: Does a non-adapted herbivore perform better in galls? Ecol. Entomol. 2008, 33, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tooker, J.F.; De Moraes, C.M. A gall-inducing caterpillar species increases essential fatty acid content of its host plant without concomitant increases in phytohormone levels. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2009, 22, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Giron, D.; Huguet, E.; Stone, N.G.; Body, M. Insect-induced effects on plants and possible effectors used by galling and leaf-mining insects to manipulate their host-plant. J. Insect Physiol. 2016, 84, 70–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Connor, E.F.; Taverner, M.P. The Evolution and Adaptive Significance of the Leaf-Mining Habit. Oikos 1997, 79, 6–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Price, P.W.; Fernandes, G.W.; Warring, G.L. Adaptive nature of insect galls. Environ. Entomol. 1987, 16, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Denno, R.F.; McClure, M.S.; Ott, J.R. Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects: Competition reexamined and resurrected. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1995, 40, 297–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tooker, J.F.; Giron, D. The Evolution of Endophagy in Herbivorous Insects. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 581816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nosil, P.; Vines, T.H.; Funk, D.J. Perspective: Reproductive isolation caused by natural selection against immigrants from divergent habitats. Evolution 2005, 59, 705–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Nosil, P.; Harmon, L.J.; Seehausen, O. Ecological explanations for (incomplete) speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Fiteni, E.; Durand, K.; Gimenez, S.; Meagher, R.L., Jr.; Legeai, F.; Kergoat, G.J.; Nègre, N.; d’Alençon, E.; Nam, K. Host-plant adaptation as a driver of incipient speciation in the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda). BMC Ecol. Evol. 2022, 22, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Gloss, D.A.; Abbot, P.; Whiteman, K.N. How interactions with plant chemicals shape insect genomes. Curr. Opin. Insect. Sci. 2019, 36, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Simon, C.-J.; d’ Alencon, E.; Guy, E.; Jacquin-Joly, E.; Jaquiéry, J.; Nouhaud, P.; Peccoud, J.; Sugio, A.; Streiff, R. Genomics of adaptation to host-plants in herbivorous insects. Brief. Funct. Genom. 2015, 14, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Fischer, H.M.; Wheat, C.W.; Heckel, D.G.; Vogel, H. Evolutionary origins of a novel host plant detoxification gene in butterflies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008, 25, 809–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kulmuni, J.; Wurm, Y.; Pamilo, P. Comparative genomics of chemosensory protein genes reveals rapid evolution and positive selection in ant-specific duplicates. Heredity 2013, 110, 538–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Felsenstein, J. Skepticism towards Santa Rosalia, or why are there so few kinds of animals? Evolution 1981, 35, 124–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gavrilets, S. Models of Speciation: Where Are We Now? J. Hered. 2014, 105, 743–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tessnow, A.E.; Raszick, T.J.; Porter, P.; Sword, G.A. Patterns of genomic and allochronicstrain divergence in the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith). Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e8706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Johannesson, K. Parallel speciation: A key to sympatric divergence. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2001, 16, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Turelli, M.; Barton, H.N.; Coyne, A.J. Theory and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2001, 16, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Drès, M.; Mallet, J. Host races in plant-feeding insects and their importance in sympatric speciation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2002, 357, 471–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Feder, J.L.; Roethele, F.B.; Filchak, K.; Niedbalski, J.; Romero-Sever-son, J. Evidence for inversion polymorphism related tosympatric host race formation in the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Genetics 2003, 163, 939–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Peccoud, J.; Ollivier, A.; Plantegenest, M.; Simon, J.C. A continuum of genetic divergence from sympatric host races to species in the pea aphid complex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 7495–7500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Berlocher, S.H.; Feder, J.L. Sympatric speciation in phytophagous insects: Moving beyond controversy? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2002, 47, 773–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Feder, J.L.; Xie, X.; Rull, J.; Velez, S.; Forbes, A.; Leung, B.; Dambroski, H.; Filchak, K.E.; Aluja, M. Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Bush and the complexities of sympatric speciation in Rhagoletis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 6573–6580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Feder, J.L.; Forbes, A.A. Habitat Avoidance and Speciation for Phytophagous Insect Specialists. Funct. Ecol. 2007, 21, 585–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Forbes, A.A.; Fisher, J.; Feder, J.L. Habitat avoidance: Overlooking an important aspect of host-specific mating and sympatric speciation? Evolution 2005, 59, 1552–1559. [Google Scholar]
  58. Forbes, A.A.; Powell, T.H.Q.; Stelinski, L.L.; Smith, J.J.; Feder, J.L. Sequential sympatric speciation across trophic levels. Science 2009, 323, 776–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lin, A.P.; Chan, P.W.; Cai, L.; Dankowicz, E.; Gilbert, K.; Pierce, N.; Felton, G. The links between plant volatiles and host plant specialization of herbivores. Res. Sq. 2022, 2–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hawkins, B.A.; Cornell, H.V.; Hochberg, M.E. Predators, parasitoids, and pathogens as mortality agents in phytophagous insect populations. Ecology 1997, 78, 2145–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Stone, G.N.; Schönrogge, K. The adaptive significance of insect gall morphology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18, 512–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Body, M.; Burlat, V.; Giron, D. Hypermetamorphosis in a leaf-miner allows insects to cope with a confined nutritional space. Arthropod-Plant Interact. 2015, 9, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gutzwiller, F.; Dedeine, F.; Kaiser, W.; Giron, D.; Lopez-Vaamonde, C. Correlation between the green-island phenotype and Wolbachia infections during the evolutionary diversification of Gracillariidae leaf-mining moths. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 5, 4049–4062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rákosy, L. Die Noctuiden Rumäniens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae); Stapfia 46: Linz, Austria, 1996; p. 648. [Google Scholar]
  65. Bookstein, F.L. Size and shape spaces for Landmark data in two dimensions. Stat. Sci. 1986, 1, 181–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zelditch, M.L.; Swiderski, D.L.; Sheets, H.D.; Fink, W.L. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer; Elsevier Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004; p. 444. [Google Scholar]
  67. Baranyi, T.; Korompai, T.; Józsa Á, C.s.; Kozma, P. Gortyna borelii lunata (Freyer, 1838). In Natura 2000 Species Studies I; Varga, Z., Ed.; Dél-Nyírség Bihari Tájvédelmi és Kulturális Értékırzı Egyesület: Debrecen, Hungary, 2006; pp. 3–69. [Google Scholar]
  68. Grimaldi, D. The co-radiations of pollinating insects and angiosperms in the Cretaceous. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1999, 86, 373–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Janz, N. Ehrlich and Raven revisited: Mechanisms underlying codiversification of plants and enemies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011, 42, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Joy, J.B. Symbiosis catalyses niche expansion and diversification. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 280, 20122820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Darwell, C.T.; Fox, K.A.; Althoff, D.M. The roles of geography and founder effects in promoting host-associated differentiation in the generalist bogus yucca moth Prodoxus decipiens. J. Evol. Biol. 2014, 27, 2706–2718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gavrilets, S. Fitness Landscapes and the Origin of Species (MPB-41); Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2004; Volume 41. [Google Scholar]
  73. Bereczki, J.; Póliska, S.; Váradi, A.; Tóth, J.P. Incipient sympatric speciation via host race formation in Phengaris arion (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Org. Divers. Evol. 2020, 20, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Durand, K.; Yainna, S.; Nam, K. Incipient speciation between host-plant strains in the fall armyworm. BMC Ecol. Evol. 2022, 22, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zinetti, F.; Dapporto, L.; Vovlas, A.; Chelazzi, G.; Bonelli, S.; Balletto, E.; Ciofi, C. When the Rule Becomes the Exception. No Evidence of Gene Flow between Two Zerynthia Cryptic Butterflies Suggests the Emergence of a New Model Group. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e65746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Burban, C.; Rocha, S.; Leblois, R.; Rossi, J.P.; Sauné, L.; Branco, M.; Kerdelhué, C. From sympatry to parapatry: A rapid change in the spatial context of incipient allochronic speciation. Evol. Ecol. 2020, 34, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Nishida, R.; Fukami, H. Ecological adaptation of an Aristolochiaceae-feeding swallowtail butterfly, Atrophaneura alcinous, to aristolochic acids. J. Chem. Ecol. 1989, 15, 2549–2563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Descimon, H.; Renon, C. Mélanisme et facteurs climatiques: I—Étude biométrique de la variation de Melanargia galathea (Linné) (Lepidoptera Satyridae) en France. Arch. Zool. Exp. Gén. 1975, 116, 255–292. [Google Scholar]
  79. Luebke, H.J.; Scriber, J.M.; Yandell, B.S. Use of Multivariate Discriminant Analysis of male wing morphometrics to delineate a hybrid zone for Papilio glaucus glacus and P. g. canadensis in Wisconsin. Am. Midl. Nat. 1988, 119, 366–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Winding, J.J.; Rintamäki, P.T.; Cassel, A.; Nylin, S. How useful is fluctuating asymmetry in conservation biology: Asymmetry in rare and abundant Coenonympha butterflies. J. Insect Conserv. 2001, 4, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cespedes, A.; Penz, C.M.; Devries, P.J. Cruising the rain forest floor: Butterfly wing shape evolution and gliding in ground effect. J. Anim. Ecol. 2014, 84, 808–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Habel, J.C.; Vila, R.; Vodă, R.; Husemann, M.; Schmitt, T.; Dapporto, L. Differentiation in the marbled white butterfly species complex driven by multiple evolutionary forces. J. Biogeogr. 2014, 44, 433–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lemic, D.; Viric Gasparic, H.; Majcenic, P.; Pajač Živković, I.; Bjeliš, M.; Suazo, M.J.; Correa, M.; Hernández, J.; Benítez, H.A. Wing Shape Variation between Terrestrial and Coastal Populations of the Invasive Box Tree Moth, Cydalima perspectalis, in Croatia. Animals 2023, 13, 3044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Martin, M.A.; Sitar, C.; Rákosy, L. Non-invasive methods for morphometric analyses of lepidopteran wings. Entomol. Rom. 2020, 24, 25–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Forsman, A.; Polic, D.; Sunde, J.; Betzholtz, P.E.; Franzén, M. Variable colour patterns indicate multidimensional, intraspecific trait variation and ecological generalization in moths. Ecography 2020, 43, 823–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ministerul Mediului, Apelor și Pădurilor. MMAP Supune Dezbaterii Publice Planul de Management al Sitului de Importanță Comunitară ROȘCI0238 Suatu-Cojocna-Crairat. Available online: https://mmediu.ro/articol/mmap-supune-dezbaterii-publice-planul-de-management-al-sitului-de-importanta-comunitara-rosci0238-suatu-cojocna-crairat/1147 (accessed on 17 January 2024).
Diversity 16 00227 g001
Figure 1. (A) Gortyna borelli from Viișoara; (B) Gortyna borelii from newly discovered site near Aphida; (C) the species’ habitat in Cefa; (D) the species’ habitat in Viișoara; (E) the species’ habitat in Apahida; (F) the species’ habitat in the Domogled Mountain.
Figure 1. (A) Gortyna borelli from Viișoara; (B) Gortyna borelii from newly discovered site near Aphida; (C) the species’ habitat in Cefa; (D) the species’ habitat in Viișoara; (E) the species’ habitat in Apahida; (F) the species’ habitat in the Domogled Mountain.
Diversity 16 00227 g001
Diversity 16 00227 g002
Figure 2. Specimens of G. borelii from study sites: (A) Apahida, (B) Viișoara, and (C) Cefa (Crișana).
Figure 2. Specimens of G. borelii from study sites: (A) Apahida, (B) Viișoara, and (C) Cefa (Crișana).
Diversity 16 00227 g002
Diversity 16 00227 g003
Figure 3. Landmarks selected for geometric morphometrics and linear measurements.
Figure 3. Landmarks selected for geometric morphometrics and linear measurements.
Diversity 16 00227 g003
Diversity 16 00227 g004
Figure 4. (A) Distribution of Gortyna borelii in Europe (adapted from [10,67], modified and corrected), indicating Peucedanum species specific to the larvae in various geographical regions. Circles represent records prior to 1980, while black dots represent records after 1980; (B) records of Gortyna borelii from Romania are provided, along with indications of Peucedanum species on which its larvae feed in different geographical areas.
Figure 4. (A) Distribution of Gortyna borelii in Europe (adapted from [10,67], modified and corrected), indicating Peucedanum species specific to the larvae in various geographical regions. Circles represent records prior to 1980, while black dots represent records after 1980; (B) records of Gortyna borelii from Romania are provided, along with indications of Peucedanum species on which its larvae feed in different geographical areas.
Diversity 16 00227 g004
Diversity 16 00227 g005
Figure 5. Graphic representation of Procrustes fit results.
Figure 5. Graphic representation of Procrustes fit results.
Diversity 16 00227 g005
Diversity 16 00227 g006
Figure 6. Graphic representation of Principal Component 1 for each landmark.
Figure 6. Graphic representation of Principal Component 1 for each landmark.
Diversity 16 00227 g006
Diversity 16 00227 g007
Figure 7. Graphic representation of Principal Component 2 for each landmark.
Figure 7. Graphic representation of Principal Component 2 for each landmark.
Diversity 16 00227 g007
Diversity 16 00227 g008
Figure 8. PCA1 and PC2 for all individuals in the study, with Confidence Ellipses for means at a 90% probability. Red-Apahida, green-Cefa, and blue-Viișoara.
Figure 8. PCA1 and PC2 for all individuals in the study, with Confidence Ellipses for means at a 90% probability. Red-Apahida, green-Cefa, and blue-Viișoara.
Diversity 16 00227 g008
Diversity 16 00227 g009
Figure 9. Canonical Variance Analysis for all individuals in the analysis, with Confidence Ellipses for means at a 90% probability. Red-Apahida, green-Cefa, and blue-Viișoara.
Figure 9. Canonical Variance Analysis for all individuals in the analysis, with Confidence Ellipses for means at a 90% probability. Red-Apahida, green-Cefa, and blue-Viișoara.
Diversity 16 00227 g009
Table 1. The average thickness of the host plant depending on the location (ANOVA test, p < 0.0001).
Table 1. The average thickness of the host plant depending on the location (ANOVA test, p < 0.0001).
Min.MedianMax.Average
Apahida5101710.23
Viisoara2.53.75134.28
Cefa69149.33
Table 2. Mean wing length and width for all three populations.
Table 2. Mean wing length and width for all three populations.
LocationAverage Wing LengthAverage Wing Width
Apahida24.0395833312.66208333
Viișoara20.7088372110.75348837
Cefa24.9082692313.27403846
Table 3. Variance covered using Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2.
Table 3. Variance covered using Principal Component 1 and Principal Component 2.
PC % Variance Cumulative %
144.35544.355
219.8164.165
Table 4. p-values from permutation tests.
Table 4. p-values from permutation tests.
APCR
CR0.0266
VI0.01580.0004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rákosy, L.; Martin, M.A.; Sitar, G.M.; Crișan, A.; Sitar, C. Exploring Morphological Population Variability: Host Plant and Habitat Dependency in the Protected Moth Gortyna borelii (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Diversity 2024, 16, 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16040227

AMA Style

Rákosy L, Martin MA, Sitar GM, Crișan A, Sitar C. Exploring Morphological Population Variability: Host Plant and Habitat Dependency in the Protected Moth Gortyna borelii (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Diversity. 2024; 16(4):227. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16040227

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rákosy, László, Mihai Alexandru Martin, Geanina Magdalena Sitar, Andrei Crișan, and Cristian Sitar. 2024. "Exploring Morphological Population Variability: Host Plant and Habitat Dependency in the Protected Moth Gortyna borelii (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae)" Diversity 16, no. 4: 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16040227

APA Style

Rákosy, L., Martin, M. A., Sitar, G. M., Crișan, A., & Sitar, C. (2024). Exploring Morphological Population Variability: Host Plant and Habitat Dependency in the Protected Moth Gortyna borelii (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Diversity, 16(4), 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16040227

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop