Next Article in Journal
Habitat-Related Differences in Winter Presence and Spring–Summer Activity of Roe Deer in Warsaw
Previous Article in Journal
Temperature-Dependent Creep Behavior and Quasi-Static Mechanical Properties of Heat-Treated Wood
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/f12080969
forests-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Distribution of Gonipterus Species and Their Egg Parasitoids in Australia: Implications for Biological Control

by
Michelle L. Schröder
1,*,
Helen F. Nahrung
2,
Natalia M. de Souza
2,
Simon A. Lawson
2,
Bernard Slippers
3,
Michael J. Wingfield
3 and
Brett P. Hurley
1
1
Department of Zoology and Entomology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0028, South Africa
2
Forest Research Institute, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD 4558, Australia
3
Department of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0028, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2021, 12(8), 969; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12080969
Submission received: 8 June 2021 / Revised: 8 July 2021 / Accepted: 12 July 2021 / Published: 22 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Gonipterus species are pests of Eucalyptus plantations worldwide. The egg parasitoid wasp Anaphes nitens is used in many countries for the biological control of Gonipterus spp. Recent taxonomic studies have shown that the three invasive Gonipterus spp., which were previously considered as G. scutellatus, form part of a cryptic species complex. These taxonomic changes have implications for the biological control of Gonipterus spp. The aims of this study were to understand the species composition and distribution of Gonipterus spp. and their egg parasitoids in Australia. Gonipterus spp. adults and egg capsules were collected in south-eastern Australia and Tasmania. Adult Gonipterus were identified using morphology and DNA barcoding. Parasitoids were reared from Gonipterus egg capsules and identified. Thirteen Gonipterus species were collected: twelve species were found on the Australian mainland and one species in Tasmania. These included three described species, four previously recognized but undescribed species, two undescribed species and four unidentified species. Five egg parasitoid species that attack Gonipterus spp. were identified. Anaphes nitens, Centrodora damoni and Euderus sp. were identified on the Australian mainland and A. tasmaniae and A. inexpectatus were identified in Tasmania. The results from this study will contribute to the improvement of Gonipterus biological control in the future.

1. Introduction

A number of strategies and protocols underpin the efficiency and success of biological control programs [1]. These include studies from the native ranges of the target pests aimed at understanding the diversity and ecology of natural enemies within the native range [2], searching for natural enemies in a region that is climatically similar to that of the introduced range [2,3] and collecting natural enemies from native populations of the pest that are genetically similar to those of the invasive population [2,4,5]. All of these approaches depend on a thorough understanding of the taxonomy, distribution and population structure of the target pest and its natural enemies in their native ranges [6,7,8,9,10,11].
The existence of cryptic species complexes can hamper the successful implementation of biological control. If the pest or biological control agent is part of a cryptic species complex, the misidentification of either of these components poses a significant risk. This can lead to the introduction of mismatched species of biological control agents, which in turn can lead to failure or inefficient control [12,13,14,15,16]. Combining ecological, behavioural and biosystematic studies with the morphological descriptions of species can contribute to detecting cryptic species [17,18,19,20,21,22]. For example, two cryptic species of Ganaspis brasiliensis (Ihering) (Hymenoptera: Figitidae), a candidate biological control agent for Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae) displayed different host specificity through different habitat preferences. Drosophila suzukii only attacks ripening fruit in its invaded range. One genetically distinct group of G. brasiliensis was found to only attack larvae in ripening fruit, whereas the other group attacked Drosophila larvae irrespectively of their food source. The G. brasiliensis group that is more habitat specific is thus the preferred candidate for biological control [23]. It is therefore important to determine whether cryptic species are present at the start of biological control programmes, and if this is the case, investigate the potential implication of this cryptic diversity on the program.
Gonipterus spp. Schöenherr (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) native to Australia, are defoliators of Eucalyptus spp. Female beetles oviposit on new leaves in clusters of up to 20 eggs that they cover with an excrement. The emerging larvae feed on the epidermis of the new leaves, resulting in crown defoliation and significant yield loss. Adult beetles are also leaf feeding but the larvae cause most of the damage [24]. Merchantable wood loss has been estimated to be between 29 and 86% with defoliation levels from 50 to 100% [25].
Invasive populations of Gonipterus were thought to be a single species (G. scutellatus) but are now recognised as three species in a cryptic complex of four described and four undescribed species in Australia [14]. The invasive species are G. platensis Marelli, G. pulverulentus Lea and Gonipterus sp. n. 2. Gonipterus sp. n. 2 is native to eastern mainland Australia and is invasive in Western Australia, Tasmania, Africa and parts of Europe [14,26]. G. pulverulentus is endemic in New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania and is invasive in South America. G. platensis is native to Tasmania, and invasive in North and South America, parts of Europe and Australasia [14].
A single parasitoid species, Anaphes nitens (Girault) (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) was introduced to control the invasive Gonipterus spp. [24,27,28], based on the premise that it was one globally invasive pest species. Anaphes nitens was originally detected in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, but material for the initial shipment was only collected in South Australia due to high numbers in this region [24]. The first introductions were made in South Africa (1926) and New Zealand (1927, 1929) [24,29]. This classical biological control program was successful, and by 1950, Gonipterus populations in South Africa were considered to be under economic control [24]. Following the success of the programme in South Africa, A. nitens was sourced from this country and introduced from there to countries in the Americas, Europe and Africa where Gonipterus spp. had become invasive [27,30,31,32,33].
Despite the initial success of the Gonipterus biological control programmes using A. nitens, pest resurgence has been observed in the invaded range of the pest [24,25,34,35,36]. The taxonomic confusion regarding the identity of the target pest species, as well as abiotic factors have been identified as possible contributing factors to the observed population outbreaks [14,24,25,37]. The discovery of cryptic diversity in Gonipterus has thus been an important driver for further studies in the native range to improve the biological control of Gonipterus.
It is not clear how cryptic diversity has globally affected the classical biological control programme for Gonipterus spp. Historical distribution records are not reliable due to the incorrect identification of Gonipterus spp. and distribution records of Gonipterus spp. are limited to two studies of which only one includes the Australian mainland [14,26]. In addition, limited information is available regarding the distribution of the egg parasitoids within the native range.
Recent surveys and identification of the natural enemies that attack Gonipterus spp. in Tasmania were undertaken, where G. platensis and G. pulverulentus occur [26,38]. Only historical records of the natural enemies are available from the Australian mainland where Gonipterus sp. n. 2 is native. In this study, the known distribution range of Gonipterus species in Australia was surveyed to gain a wider perspective of Gonipterus species composition, geographical distribution, host–plant relationships and egg parasitoids within its native and introduced range within Australia. This is especially in light of recent taxonomic understanding of the pest. The relevance of these results to biological control programmes of Gonipterus was also considered.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Insect and Plant Collections

Gonipterus adults and egg capsules were collected from mature and juvenile Eucalyptus trees in plantations, recreational parks and roadsides in South Australia (SA), Victoria (VIC), New South Wales (NSW), Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Queensland (QLD), Western Australia (WA) and Tasmania (TAS) (Figure 1). A total of 373 locations were inspected for the presence of Gonipterus. The sampling locations were selected by driving and stopping at regular intervals along the road, inspecting trees at recreational parks and plantation trees where possible. From these sampling points, Gonipterus was collected from 109 locations. Two collecting trips were done in early and late summer of 2017 in SA, VIC, NSW and ACT. Collections from TAS comprised only one sampling occasion, in early summer of 2017, but was deliberately limited because of recent surveys in that state [26,38]. Collections in QLD were done in late summer in 2017 and additional ad hoc sampling was done in 2018 and 2019. Collections in WA were done in 2018 from plantations. All collection areas other than WA include the known native distribution of the G. scutellatus species complex in Australia. Leaves and seed capsules were collected from mature Eucalyptus spp. from which beetles were collected and submitted to the Queensland Herbarium at the Brisbane Botanic Gardens, Mt. Coot-tha for identification. Collections were not limited to mature trees and included juvenile trees. No distinction was made between planted and native trees within the respective regions. GPS location data were recorded for each collection point.
Adult beetles were killed by freezing and were stored in 99% ethanol prior to identification. Egg capsules were individually placed into gelatine capsules or 0.5 mL tubes in an incubator at 20 °C with 70% humidity. All parasitoids that emerged from the egg capsules were collected for identification.

2.2. Species Identification

Adult Gonipterus were identified using morphological characteristics and sequences of the Cytochrome Oxidase 1 (CO1) gene in the mitochondrial DNA. The most reliable morphological characteristic for the species identification for Gonipterus is the morphology of the male genitalia [14]. Therefore, only the males were identified by means of morphology (292 males). The females were identified by DNA barcoding. Between one and five females per collection site were used for identification. Sequence data from the DNA barcoding region were also included from identified males. Sequences from GenBank were used as reference samples.
Morphological identification of adult male Gonipterus individuals was done by incubating the male abdomens in a warm 10% solution of potassium hydroxide (KOH). The aedeagus was removed from the KOH solution, rinsed and dissected in 70% ethanol and examined in glycerine. The remains of the abdomen and the aedeagus were placed in genital vials with glycerine for temporary storage. Identifications of Gonipterus spp. were confirmed by R. Oberprieler and representative specimens were deposited with the Australian National Insect Collection (ANIC), CSIRO, Black Mountain, ACT.
Adult parasitoid wasps were placed in ethanol in a Petri dish and identified using a dissecting microscope (ZEIS) with 100× magnification and the keys by Huber and Prinsloo [39] and Prinsloo (Pers. comm.). Representative samples of each species were sent to G. Prinsloo (formerly affiliated with the Agricultural Research Council (ARC)-Biosystematics, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa) for species confirmation.

2.3. DNA Barcoding

DNA extraction. A total of 108 Gonipterus adults (17 male, 80 female and 11 unknown) were used for DNA barcoding. DNA was extracted from the wing muscles or hind leg of adult insects. A ZyGEM PrepGEM® Insect DNA extraction kit and manufacturer’s protocol were used. DNA extractions were diluted to approximately 50 ng/µL and stored at −20 °C.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR). A 331 bp fragment of the CO1 gene region of the mitochondrial DNA was amplified using previously published primers (Table 1). PCR was performed for each sample using ProFlex PCR system (ThermoFischer Scientific Inc., Johannesburg, South Africa). Each 25 µL reaction contained 2.5 µL 10× PCR buffer (ROCHE, Roche Diagnostocs, Midrand, South Africa) 3 µL of 25 mM magnesium chloride (ROCHE), 0.5 µL Faststart Taq Polymerase (ROCHE), 2.5 µL DNTPs (ROCHE) (10 µM of each DNTP), 1 µL of each forward and reverse primer (Whitehead Scientific (Pty) Ltd. Johannesburg, South Africa; Inqaba Biotec TM, Pretoria, South Africa) diluted to 10 mM, 13 µL of distilled water and 1 µL of template DNA. The PCR thermal cycle program included a denaturation period of 5 min at 96 °C, 40 cycles of 1 min at 94 °C, 1 min at annealing temperature and 1 min and 30 s at 72 °C, followed by a final extension period of 10 min at 72 °C.
PCR products were visualized on a 1% agarose gel using electrophoresis (BioRad Gel DocTM Ez Imager and the software Image Lab v 4.0 build 16). PCR products were purified using the QIAquickTM PCR Purification Kit (QIAGEN) following the manufacturer’s instructions and visualised on a 1% agarose gel as described above. Purified PCR products were used for sequencing. Each 10 mL sequence cycle reaction consisted of 2 µL sequencing buffer (Applied Biosystems™, Thermo Fischer Scientific, Pretoria, South Africa), 0.5 µL BigDye (Applied Biosystems™), 0.5 µL primer for each forward and reverse primer separately, 6 µL distilled water and 2 µL purified PCR product. The thermal cycle reaction program included an initial denaturation of 2 min at 96 °C, 35 cycles of 30 s at 96 °C, 15 s at annealing temperature, and 4 min at 60 °C. Cycle sequencing products were cleaned using the Ethanol/NaAC precipitation of BigDye Terminator v3.1 DNA sequencing reactions protocol from the ABI manual. Samples were sequenced using an ABI PrismTM 3100 Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems™).

2.4. Data Analysis

Phylogenetic analysis. Forward and reverse sequences were manually checked for base accuracy and trimmed using Chromas 2.6.2 [40]. Sequence contigs were created using BioEdit Sequence alignment editor version 7.2.5 [41] and aligned using ClustalW in MEGA 6 [42]. DNA sequences were translated to amino acids and searched for the presence of stop codons using AliView version 1.22 [43]. Seventy-three sequences of Gonipterus from Genbank (FJ88529.1-FJ88529.1, JN391478.1-JN391486) were added to the dataset before analysis. CO1 sequences (obtained from GenBank) for the closely related genus Haplonyx sp. were used as an outgroup. A neighbour joining tree using Maximum Composite Likelihood Model and 1000 bootstrap replicates was calculated using MEGA 6.
Species distribution: GPS and species identification data were used to map the geographical distribution of Gonipterus species and their egg parasitoids in Australia. Distribution maps were generated using GIS software (QGIS version 3.2.2, 2018).

3. Results

3.1. Identification and Distribution of Gonipterus Species

Thirteen Gonipterus spp. were identified based on the genitalia sclerites of 292 adult males (Figure 2). Five species, Gonipterus sp. n. 1–4 and G. pulverulentus are recognised members of the G. scutellatus species complex (Figure 2a–e), characterised by the squarely protruding apex of the male aedeagus [14]. Two described species not included in the G. scutellatus complex (G. notographus Boisduval and G. cinnamomeus Pascoe) were also collected. Furthermore, two species that have yet to be described were collected and are referred to here as Gonipterus sp. n. 6 and Gonipterus sp. n. 7. Three species, coded here as Gonipterus sp. 8, Gonipterus sp. 10 and Gonipterus sp. 11 could not be identified at the species level and further taxonomic studies are needed. A variety (synonym) of G. inconspicuus Lea was identified but needs taxonomic revision, here referred to as Gonipterus sp. 12 (Natalia M. de Souza pers. comm).
CO1 sequences were obtained for 108 specimens of which 14 sequences were excluded due to the presence of stop codons, indicating that a pseudogene had been amplified which could lead to the overestimation of genetic diversity. The analyses yielded 17 moderately to strongly supported clades (Figure 3). Of these, 16 represented species of Gonipterus and one represented the outgroup, Haplonyx sp. Twelve of the 16 Gonipterus clades accommodated samples collected during this study. These 12 lineages were supported by the identifications based on male genitalia. No sequences were obtained for the G. pulverulentus samples collected. Thus, G. pulverulentus, G. platensis, G. scutellatus, and G. balteatus Pascoe in the neighbour joining tree were only represented by GenBank samples. The majority of the species did not show phylogenetic grouping based on the geographic location of different populations. This was with the exception of Gonipterus sp. n. 1, where the Australian mainland populations were separated from the TAS populations, and Gonipterus sp. 10, where the VIC and ACT populations were separated from each other.
The distribution of Gonipterus spp. differed between the regions surveyed (Figure 4). Gonipterus sp. n. 1 was collected from south-eastern VIC, NSW, ACT and TAS and Gonipterus sp. n. 2 from all the regions where samples were collected on the Australian mainland. Gonipterus sp. n. 3 was collected from SA, VIC and ACT. Gonipterus sp. 10 was collected from VIC and ACT. G. notographus and Gonipterus sp. 11 were only found in VIC. Gonipterus sp. n. 4, Gonipterus sp. n. 6, Gonipterus sp. n. 7, Gonipterus sp. 8, Gonipterus. sp. 12 and G. cinnamomeus were only collected in QLD. G. pulverulentus was collected from TAS.

3.2. Identification and Distribution of Gonipterus Egg Parasitoids

Five egg parasitoids were identified, including Anaphes nitens, A. tasmaniae, A. inexpectatus, Centrodora damoni and Euderus sp. (Figure 5). All are known parasitoids of Gonipterus. Anaphes nitens, C. damoni and Euderus sp. were collected from all of the collecting regions on the Australian mainland other than WA where only A. nitens was collected. Anaphes tasmaniae and A. inexpectatus were only collected in Tasmania.
An additional Hymenopteran species emerged from egg capsule samples collected from south-east QLD (Figure 5). Identification at species level for this insect was not possible because only two individuals were collected, but they appeared to be species of Closterocerus Westwood (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae).

3.3. Gonipterus Host Plant Association

The association of Gonipterus spp. with Eucalyptus spp. differed between the regions surveyed (Table 2). Gonipterus sp. n. 1 was collected from Eucalyptus conspicua, E. cinerea subsp. cinerea, E. crenulata, E. globulus and E. morrisbyi. Gonipterus sp. n. 2 was collected from the widest range of Eucalyptus spp., which includes commercially planted species such as E. globulus and E. dunnii. Gonipterus sp. n. 3 was collected from E. globulus and E. viminalis. Gonipterus sp. n. 4 was collected from E. propinqua and E. microcorys. Gonipterus notographus was collected from E. radiata subsp. radiata and Gonipterus sp. 11 from E. globulus. Gonipterus sp. n. 7 and G. cinnamomeus was collected from E. melanophloia and Gonipterus sp. 12 from E. propinqua. The host association of the Gonipterus species is not comprehensive, because many of the samples were collected from unidentified juvenile trees. In total, fifteen species of Eucalyptus were identified (Table 2), thirteen in the subgenus Symphyomyrtus and the remaining two species in the subgenera Eucalyptus and Alveolata [44].

4. Discussion

This study makes a significant contribution towards a better understanding of the distribution of Gonipterus species and their natural enemies on the Australian mainland. This study confirmed the native and introduced distribution range of the Gonipterus species known from the G. scutellatus species complex, extended the known distribution for two species of Gonipterus and provided distribution records of two previously undescribed species. In total, 13 species of Gonipterus were collected and identified. Nine species were phylogenetically grouped in the G. scutellatus species complex, but only five of these shared the squarely protruding apex of the aedeagus that is characteristic of the complex [14]. Six species of egg parasitoids were identified, five species that infest Gonipterus egg capsules and the status as Gonipterus parasitoid of the sixth species, Closterocerus sp., is unknown (Gerhard Prinsloo, pers. comm.). Species of Closterocerus parasitoids are known to parasitize leafminers and gall formers [45], for example, C. mirabilis Edwards & La Salle attacks Agromyzidae [46] and C. chamaeleon (Girault) attacks Ophelimus maskelli [47]. The known distribution range for three of the egg parasitoid species known to infest Gonipterus eggs was extended.
In this study, we confirmed that Gonipterus sp. n. 1–4, and G. pulverulentus belong to the G. scutellatus cryptic species complex as determined by Mapondera et al. [14]. Two additional undescribed species, Gonipterus sp. n. 6 and Gonipterus sp. n. 7 are identified in the G. scutellatus cryptic species complex based on current definition by morphological characteristics [14] and DNA barcoding. An additional three species, Gonipterus. sp. 12, Gonipterus sp. 10 and Gonipterus sp. 11 were also phylogenetically grouped within the G. scutellatus complex but did not have the squarely protruding apex of the aedeagus that is characteristic of the complex [14]. These species could also be separated based on their cuticular hydrocarbon profiles [48]. A taxonomic review of Gonipterus and the G. scutellatus complex is needed to describe the previously undescribed species and to determine whether the species without a squarely protruding apex is to be included in the G. scutellatus complex. Understanding these species boundaries and distributions of Gonipterus is important to understand species’ interactions within the native range and to identify potential biological control agents.
The results of the present study confirm the native distribution of Gonipterus sp. n. 2–4, G. pulverulentus and G. cinnamomeus as determined by previous studies [14,26,38,49], and provide for the first time distribution records for Gonipterus sp. n. 6 and Gonipterus sp. n. 7. Importantly, they also expand the known distribution of Gonipterus sp. n. 1 and G. notographus to the Australian mainland, given that they were previously only known to be from Tasmania [14]. The Gonipterus sp. n. 1 population in Victoria, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory was phylogenetically distinct from the Tasmania population, suggesting that the mainland population is not a recent introduction. In contrast, the G. notographus population in Victoria was not phylogenetically separated from the Tasmanian population, suggesting it could be a recent introduction. Other recent introductions of Gonipterus spp. part of the G. scutellatus cryptic species complex have also been recorded outside their native ranges within Australia. G. platensis and Gonipterus sp. n. 2 are invasive in Western Australia [14] and Gonipterus sp. n. 2 have recently been recorded in Tasmania [26].
This study confirms that the distribution of the invasive species differs in the native range, which indicates that natural enemies for the development of biological control programs should be collected from the respective distribution ranges within the native range. No new distribution records were recorded for the three invasive species apart from Gonipterus sp. n. 2, which was recorded further north- in south-eastern QLD in the present study than the study by Mapondera et al. [14]. G. pulverulentus was not collected on the Australian mainland in the present study despite the species being reported previously in NSW and QLD [14]. Thus, it can be inferred from the distribution records from the present and previous studies of the three invasive species that the biological control agent, A. nitens, was imported from the native range of Gonipterus sp. n. 2, as both the beetle and parasitoid species are present at Penola, from where A. nitens was originally collected [24].
The distribution records of the egg parasitoids emerging from the present study together with previous records [24,29,50,51] indicate that three of the five egg parasitoids of Gonipterus are present throughout the entire distribution range of Gonipterus species on the Australian mainland. Two species, A. nitens and C. damoni were previously recorded from the Australian mainland, but with limited distribution [24,29,51]. This study presents the first record of A. nitens in Queensland: previously, it was recorded from South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Western Australia and Tasmania [24,50,52]. Our results provide the first record of C. damoni in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. This species has previously been recorded from Queensland, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania [26,38,51], Euderus sp. was recorded from Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Previously, Euderus sp. had been identified from Western Australia and Tasmania [26,38,50]. Despite the three species known to be parasitoids of Gonipterus spp., being present on the Australia mainland and Tasmania, further collections for the development and introduction of biological control agents should be focused on the native distribution of the respective invasive species and consider the local climatic conditions of the target region in comparison to the native range.
The native distribution range of A. nitens and Gonipterus sp. n. 2 includes five different states on the Australian mainland. The five states are divided into three major climatic zones, which are further subdivided based on regional rainfall [53]. Anaphes nitens used in the biological control program worldwide was originally collected from a single population in Penola, South Australia. The Mediterranean climate of this region is not the same across all the regions where the parasitoid is used as a biological control agent. For example, in South Africa, the climate in the Western Cape region is similar to that in Penola, with winter rainfall [24]. However, Gonipterus sp. n. 2 has established across a range of different climatic zones within South Africa, including temperate regions of the Highveld with winter temperatures much lower than that experienced at Penola, and sub-tropical regions of coastal KwaZulu-Natal that is more similar to Queensland, Australia [24]. Sub-optimal temperatures for A. nitens may therefore be influencing the high infestations of Gonipterus sp. n. 2 observed in these regions of South Africa (authors, pers. obs). The same is true for other regions of the world, such as Portugal, where low parasitism rates are associated with maximum winter temperatures below 10 °C [25]. Further introductions of A. nitens populations, or other parasitoid species, from the native range to these invaded regions may be required, where climate matching between collections in the native range, and the target range is considered.
The three egg parasitoid species, A. nitens, C. damoni and Euderus sp. identified on the Australian mainland occur throughout the known distribution range of Gonipterus sp. n. 2. This indicates that they do co-exist, but the nature of their interaction is not known. They are all endoparasitoids which share the same niche. It is thus expected that there will be some form of resource competition or niche separation. Niche separation can occur between species that co-exist by having different host and habitat preferences, temporal separation and varying degrees of adaptation to abiotic conditions [54,55,56]. In our study, Anaphes nitens was the dominant species collected at most sites on the Australian mainland, but this could temporally vary. Various aspects of A. nitens biology have been studied [24,57,58,59,60,61,62], but little is known about its interactions with other parasitoid species within its native range. Exploitation and interference competition occurred between A. nitens and A. inexpectatus in laboratory studies using G. platensis, with lower temperatures favouring A. inexpectatus [62]. Factors such as the overall efficiency of the parasitoid species, the extent and form of niche separation, and the type of interaction between parasitoids will be important in understanding the final outcome of multiple species introductions on the Gonipterus population [63,64].
The present study identified five new host records not previously known from Gonipterus species. These include, G. notographus associated with E. radiata subsp. radiata, G. cinnamomeus collected from E. melanophloia and Gonipterus sp. n. 1 collected from E. conspicua and E. crenulata. E. radiata was previously considered resistant to Gonipterus attack [24], although these records were from South Africa, where only Gonipterus sp. n. 2 is present. Garcia et al. [26] also determined that the host associations for G. notographus and Gonipterus sp. n. 1 is different from the other species of Gonipterus present in Tasmania. Host plant records for the G. scutellatus cryptic species have been inconsistent in the past due to the three invasive species being identified as G. scutellatus [28]. The present study contributes to a better understanding of host association for ten of the Gonipterus species and 15 Eucalyptus host species present on the Australian mainland. Understanding host range and niche separation is valuable for planning future studies and more targeted approaches to collect biological control agents in the native range.
The number of Eucalyptus hosts identified was limited as most of the collections were from juvenile trees which are difficult to identify due to the absence of flowers and seeds [44]. Future studies could focus on the use of barcoding techniques to identify juvenile Eucalyptus trees. The study focused on the Australian mainland and did not include a big sampling effort in Tasmania because Valente et al. [52] and Garcia et al. [26] had recently extensively sampled Gonipterus species and their parasitoids in that state. Two of the species detected in their surveys but not in ours were G. platensis and G. scutellatus [14]. In this study, two collection trips were made at the end and beginning of summer in two consecutive years. Additional surveys in Queensland were undertaken by Souza et al. [65]. A temporal sampling strategy focused on specific regions, climatically matched with the target release area, will contribute to detecting the presence of Gonipterus and parasitoid species that were not abundant at the time collections were performed in the present study. This study and the recent surveys undertaken in the native distribution range of the G. scutellatus species complex significantly contribute to our understanding of Gonipterus biotic interactions in the native and introduced range in Australia and contribute to the development of more robust biological control programs for Gonipterus species in the introduced range.

5. Conclusions

This study is the first comprehensive survey of Gonipterus species and their parasitoids on the Australian mainland. This study contributes to our understanding of the distribution of Gonipterus species in the native range, host relationships and natural enemies. This is important information to underpin the further development of biological control, understanding native-range interactions, and hasten identification in the event of additional Gonipterus invasions.
The results also highlight taxonomic uncertainties that present challenges for the development of biological control agents of Gonipterus spp. and in defining species boundaries in the genus. Obtaining clarity regarding the taxonomy of Gonipterus spp. will also play an important role in biosecurity. Closely related Gonipterus species feeding on commercially relevant Eucalyptus species, such as Gonipterus sp. 11 collected from E. globulus plantations, should be considered by biosecurity practitioners as there is considerable risk that these species escape the borders of Australia and become invasive pests in countries where Eucalyptus is commercially produced.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, M.L.S. and B.P.H.; methodology, M.L.S., H.F.N., S.A.L.; validation, M.L.S. and N.M.d.S.; formal analysis, M.L.S.; investigation, M.L.S. and N.M.d.S.; resources, S.A.L., H.F.N., B.S. and B.P.H.; data curation, M.L.S. and B.P.H.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.S.; writing—review and editing, M.L.S., H.F.N., N.M.d.S., B.S., B.P.H., M.J.W. and S.A.L.; visualisation, M.L.S.; supervision, H.F.N., S.A.L., B.S. and B.P.H.; project administration, H.F.N., B.P.H.; funding acquisition, S.A.L., H.F.N., M.L.S., B.S. and B.P.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by an Australia Awards Fellowship (Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade), grant number R161812, the University of the Sunshine Coast, South African Department of Science and Technology—Sector Specific Innovation Fund, the Tree-Protection Cooperative Programme (TPCP) at the Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI) of the University of Pretoria, Forest and Wood Products of Australia, and the Biological Control of Eucalypt Pests Alliance (BiCEP).

Data Availability Statement

The sequence data presented in this study were deposited in the NCBI GenBank data repository.

Acknowledgments

We thank Australian Blue Gum Plantations, HPV Plantation, Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary and the University of Tasmania for assisting with site access and hosting the main author during field collections of Gonipterus and its parasitoids. We thank Jacques Schröder for volunteering his time to assist with field collections and rearing insects. We are grateful to Madaline Healey, Stephen Elms, Sue Shaw, Dianne Patzel, Andrew Loch, Ngoc Hoan Le, Dan Ruiz, Carolina Jordan, Geoff Allen, Francisco Tovar, Ian Dumbrell and Ben Bradshaw for their assistance and guidance during field collections. We thank Andrew Hayes and Manon Griffiths for their assistance at the University of the Sunshine Coast in the laboratory and obtaining export permits. We are grateful to Rolf Oberprieler and Debbie Jennings from the Australian National Insect Collection for their assistance in Gonipterus identifications and access to reference material, and to Gerhard Prinsloo for his assistance in the morphological identification of the parasitoid species collected. Samantha Bush and Josephine Queffelec assisted with rearing the parasitoids. We also thank Gudrun Dittrich-Schröder for training in the molecular biology techniques used in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Van Klinken, R.D.; Raghu, S. A scientific approach to agent selection. Aust. J. Entomol. 2006, 45, 253–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dhileepan, K.; Wilmot Senaratne, K.A.D.; Raghu, S. A systematic approach to biological control agent exploration and prioritisation for prickly acacia (Acacia nilotica ssp. indica). Aust. J. Entomol. 2006, 45, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hoelmer, K.A.; Kirk, A.A. Selecting arthropod biological control agents against arthropod pests: Can the science be improved to decrease the risk of releasing ineffective agents? Biol. Control 2005, 34, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Goolsby, J.A.; De Barro, P.J.; Makinson, J.R.; Pemberton, R.W.; Hartley, D.M.; Frohlich, D.R. Matching the origin of an invasive weed for selection of a herbivore haplotype for a biological control programme. Mol. Ecol. 2006, 15, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Goolsby, J.A.; Guerrero, F.D.; Gaskin, J.; Bendele, K.G.; Azhahianambi, P.; Amalin, D.; Flores-Cruz, M.; Kashefi, J.; Smith, L.; Racelis, A.; et al. Molecular comparison of cattle fever ticks from native and introduced ranges, with insights into optimal search areas for classical biological control agents. Southwest. Entomol. 2016, 41, 595–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. DeBach, P. Biological Control by Natural Enemies; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1974; pp. 1–323. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rosen, D. The role of taxonomy in effective biological control programs. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1986, 15, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. de Moraes, G.J. Importance of taxonomy in biological control. Insect. Sci. Appl. 1987, 8, 841–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Stiling, P. Why do natural enemies fail in classical biological control programs? Am. Entomol. 1993, 39, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fiaboe, K.K.M.; Fonseca, R.L.; De Moraes, G.J.; Ogol, C.K.P.O.; Knapp, M. Identification of priority areas in South America for exploration of natural enemies for classical biological control of Tetranychus evansi (Acari: Tetranychidae) in Africa. Biol. Control 2006, 38, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Buffington, M.L.; Talamas, E.J.; Hoelmer, K.A. Team Trissolcus: Integrating taxonomy and biological control to combat the brown marmorated stink bug. Am. Entomol. 2018, 64, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Debach, P. The importance of taxonomy to biological control as illustrated by the cryptic history of Aphytis holoxanthus n. sp. (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), a parasite of Chrysomphalus aonidum, and Aphytis coheni n. sp., a parasite of Aonidiella aurantii. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Ann. 1960, 53, 701–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Toševski, I.; Caldara, R.; Jovic, J.; Hernández-Vera, G.; Baviera, C.; Gassmann, A.; Emerson, B.C. Morphological, molecular and biological evidence reveal two cryptic species in Mecinus janthinus Germar (Coleoptera, Curculionidae), a successful biological control agent of Dalmatian toadflax, Linaria dalmatica (Lamiales, Plantaginaceae). Syst. Entomol. 2011, 36, 741–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mapondera, T.S.; Burgess, T.; Matsuki, M.; Oberprieler, R.G. Identification and molecular phylogenetics of the cryptic species of the Gonipterus scutellatus complex (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Gonipterini). Aust. J. Entomol. 2012, 51, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Barratt, B.I.P.; Cock, M.J.W.; Oberprieler, R.G. Weevils as targets for biological control, and the importance of taxonomy and phylogeny for efficacy and biosafety. Diversity 2018, 10, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Smith, L.; Cristofaro, M.; Bon, M.-C.; De Biase, A.; Petanović, R.; Vidović, B. The importance of cryptic species and subspecific populations in classic biological control of weeds: A North American perspective. BioControl 2018, 63, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Beard, J.J. Taxonomy and biological control: Neoseiulus cucumeris (Acari: Phytoseiidae), a case study. Aust. J. Entomol. 1999, 38, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hebert, P.D.N.; Penton, E.H.; Burns, J.M.; Janzen, D.H.; Hallwachs, W. Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgerator. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 14812–14817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Rissler, L.J.; Apodaca, J.J. Adding more ecology into species delimitation: Ecological niche models and phylogeography help define cryptic species in the Black Salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus). Syst. Biol. 2007, 56, 924–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Burns, J.M.; Janzen, D.H.; Hajibabaei, M.; Hallwachs, W.; Hebert, P.D.N. DNA barcodes and cryptic species of skipper butterflies in the genus Perichares in Area de Conservación Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 6350–6355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Heethoff, M.; Laumann, M.; Weigmann, G.; Raspotnig, G. Integrative taxonomy: Combining morphological, molecular and chemical data for species delineation in the parthenogenetic Trhypochthonius tectorum complex (Acari, Oribatida, Trhypochthoniidae). Front. Zool. 2011, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Peixoto, L.; Allen, G.R.; Ridenbaugh, R.D.; Quarrell, S.R.; Withers, T.M.; Sharanowski, B.J. When taxonomy and biological control researchers unite: Species delimitation of Eadya parasitoids (Braconidae) and consequences for classical biological control of invasive paropsine pests of Eucalyptus. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0201276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Seehausen, M.L.; Ris, N.; Driss, L.; Racca, A.; Girod, P.; Warot, S.; Borowiec, N.; Toševski, I.; Kenis, M. Evidence for a cryptic parasitoid species reveals its suitability as a biological control agent. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 19096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Tooke, F.G.C. The Eucalyptus Snout Beetle Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll: A Study of Its Ecology and Control by Biological Means; Department of Agriculture, Devision of Entomology: Pretoria, South Africa, 1955; pp. 1–282. [Google Scholar]
  25. Reis, A.R.; Ferreira, L.; Tomé, M.; Araujo, C.; Branco, M. Efficiency of biological control of Gonipterus platensis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) by Anaphes nitens (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) in cold areas of the Iberian Peninsula: Implications for defoliation and wood production in Eucalyptus globulus. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 270, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Garcia, A.; Allen, G.R.; Oberprieler, R.G.; Ramos, A.P.; Valente, C.; Reis, A.; Franco, J.C.; Branco, M. Biological control of Gonipterus: Uncovering the associations between eucalypts, weevils and parasitoids in their native range. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 443, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hanks, L.; Millar, J.; Paine, T.D.; Campbell, C. Classical biological control of the Australian weevil Gonipterus scutellatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in California. Environ. Entomol. 2000, 29, 369–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schröder, M.L.; Slippers, B.; Wingfield, M.J.; Hurley, B.P. Invasion history and management of Eucalyptus snout beetles in the Gonipterus scutellatus species complex. J. Pest Sci. 2020, 93, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Clark, A.F. The parasite control of Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. N. Z. J. Sci. Tech. 1931, 13, 22–28. [Google Scholar]
  30. Williams, J.R.; Moutia, L.A.; Hermelin, P.R. The biological control of Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. (Col. Curculionidae) in Mauritius. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1951, 42, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cadahia, D. Proximidad de dos nuevos enemigos de los Eucalyptus en España. Bol. Serv. Plagas 1980, 6, 165–192. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pinet, C. Patasson nitens, parasite spécifique de Gonipterus scutellatus en France. EPPO 1986, 16, 285–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lanfranco, D.; Dungey, H.S. Insect damage in Eucalyptus: A review of plantations in Chile. Austral Ecol. 2001, 26, 477–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cordero Rivera, A.; Santolamazza Carbone, S.; Andrés, J.A. Life cycle and biological control of the Eucalyptus snout beetle (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) by Anaphes nitens (Hymenoptera, Mymaridae) in north-west Spain. Agric. For. Entomol. 1999, 1, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Souza, N.M.; Junqueira, L.R.; Wilcken, C.F.; Soliman, E.P.; Camargo, M.B.; Nickele, M.A.; Barbosa, L.R. Ressurgência de uma antiga ameaça: Gorgulho-do-eucalipto Gonipterus platensis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). In Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais; Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais: Piracicaba, Brazil, 2016; p. 20. [Google Scholar]
  36. Valente, C.; Gonçalves, C.I.; Monteiro, F.; Gaspar, J.; Silva, M.; Sottomayor, M.; Paiva, M.R.; Branco, M. Economic outcome of classical biological control: A case study on the Eucalyptus Snout Beetle, Gonipterus platensis, and the parasitoid Anaphes nitens. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 149, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Valente, C.; Vaz, A.; Pina, J.; Manta, A.; Sequeira, A. Control strategy against the Eucalyptus Snout Beetle, Gonipterus scutellatus Gyllenhal (Coleoptera, Curculionidae), by the portuguese cellulose industry. In Eucalyptus in a Changing World, International IUFRO Conference of the WP2.08.03 on Silviculture and Improvement of Eucalypts, Aveiro, Portugal, 11–15 October 2004; Borralho, N.M.G., Ed.; RAIZ—Instituto de Investigacao da Floresta e Papel: Aveiro, Portugal, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  38. Valente, C.; Gonçalves, C.I.; Reis, A.; Branco, M. Pre-selection and biological potential of the egg parasitoid Anaphes inexpectatus for the control of the Eucalyptus snout beetle, Gonipterus platensis. J. Pest Sci. 2017, 90, 911–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Huber, J.T.; Prinsloo, G.L. Redescription of Anaphes nitens (Girault) and description of two new species of Anaphes (Haliday) (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), parasites of Gonipterus scutellatus Gyllenhal (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Tasmania. J. Aust. Ent. Soc. 1990, 29, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Howland, D.E.; Hewitt, G.M. Phylogeny of the Coleoptera based on mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I sequence data. Insect Mol. Biol. 1995, 4, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hall, T.A. BioEdit: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 1999, 41, 95–98. [Google Scholar]
  42. Tamura, K.; Stecher, G.; Peterson, D.; Filipski, A.; Kumar, S. MEGA6: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 6.0. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 2725–2729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Larsson, A. Ali View: A fast and lightweight alignment viewer and editor for large datasets. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 3276–3278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brooker, M.I.H. A new classification of the genus Eucalyptus L’Her (Myrtaceae). Aust. Syst. Bot. 2000, 13, 79–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Noyes, J.S. Universal Chalcidoidea Database. World Wide Web Electronic Publication. Available online: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids (accessed on 15 November 2019).
  46. Edwards, C.M.; La Salle, J. A new species of Closterocerus Westwood (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), a parasitoid of serpentine leafminers (Diptera: Agromyzidae) from Australia. Aust. J. Entomol. 2004, 43, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Protasov, A.; Blumberg, D.; Brand, D.; La Salle, J.; Mendel, Z. Biological control of the eucalyptus gall wasp Ophelimus maskelli (Ashmead): Taxonomy and biology of the parasitoid species Closterocerus chamaeleon (Girault), with information on its establishment in Israel. Biol. Control 2007, 42, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Souza, N.M.; Schröder, M.L.; Hayes, R.A.; Bello, J.E.; Nahrung, H.F. Cuticular hydrocarbons of Gonipterus weevils: Are there species differences? Chemoecology 2021, 31, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lea, A.M. Australian Curculionidae of the subfamily Gonipterides. Proc. R. Soc. Vic. 1927, 39, 76–112. [Google Scholar]
  50. Loch, A.D. Parasitism of the Eucalyptus weevil, Gonipterus scutellatus Gyllenhal, by the egg parasitoid, Anaphes nitens Girault, in Eucalyptus globulus plantations in southwestern Australia. Biol. Control 2008, 47, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ward, S.E.; Valente, C.; Gonçalves, C.; Polaszek, A. Rediscovery and redescription of Centrodora damoni (Girault) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) from Australia, an egg parasitoid of Gonipterus spp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), after nearly a century. Biodivers. Data J. 2016, e7766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Valente, C.; Afonso, C.; Gonçalves, C.I.; Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A.; Reis, A.; Branco, M. Environmental risk assessment of the egg parasitoid Anaphes inexpectatus for classical biological control of the Eucalyptus snout beetle, Gonipterus platensis. BioControl 2017, 62, 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stern, H.; De Hoedt, G.; Ernst, J. Objective classification of Australian climates. Aust. Met. Mag. 2000, 49, 87–96. [Google Scholar]
  54. Obinna, A.; Peter, N.; Korie, S. Niche separation between Encarsia dispersa and Encarsia guadeloupae, two biological control agents of the spiraling whitefly Aleurodicus dispersus, in Benin, West Africa. BioControl 2011, 56, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Berger, J.; Jönsson, M.; Hedlund, K.; Anderson, P. Niche separation of pollen beetle parasitoids. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 3, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Pekas, A.; Tena, A.; Harvey, J.A.; Garcia-Marí, F.; Frago, E. Host size and spatiotemporal patterns mediate the coexistence of specialist parasitoids. Ecology 2016, 97, 1345–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Santolamazza Carbone, S.; Cordero Rivera, A. Egg load and adaptive superparasitism in Anaphes nitens, an egg parasitoid of the Eucalyptus snout-beetle Gonipterus scutellatus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2003, 106, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Santolamazza Carbone, S.; Pestaña Nieto, M.; Cordero Rivera, A. Egg resorption behaviour by the solitary egg parasitoid Anaphes nitens under natural conditions. Ent. Exp. Appl. 2008, 127, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Santolamazza Carbone, S.; Pestaña Nieto, M.; Cordero Rivera, A. Maternal size and age affect offspring sex ratio in the solitary egg parasitoid Anaphes nitens. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2007, 125, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Santolamazza Carbone, S.; Rodríguez Illamola, A.; Cordero Rivera, A. Host finding and host discrimination ability in Anaphes nitens Girault, an egg parasitoid of the Eucalyptus snout-beetle Gonipterus scutellatus Gyllenhal. Biol. Control 2004, 29, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Santolamazza-Carbone, S.; Cordero Rivera, A. Superparasitism and sex ratio adjustment in a wasp parasitoid: Results at variance with Local Mate Competition? Oecologia 2003, 136, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Valente, C.; Afonso, C.; Gonçalves, C.I.; Branco, M. Assessing the competitive interactions between two egg parasitoids of the Eucalyptus snout beetle, Gonipterus platensis, and their implications for biological control. Biol. Control 2019, 130, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mills, N.J. Parasitoid interactions and biological control. In 1st International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods; USDA Forest Service: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  64. Pedersen, B.S.; Mills, N.J. Single vs. multiple introduction in biological control: The roles of parasitoid efficiency, antagonism and niche overlap. Appl. Ecol. 2004, 41, 973–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Souza, N.M.; Lawson, S.A.; Nahrung, H.F. Gonipterus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in subtropical Australia: Host associations and natural enemies. Austral Entomol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 12 00969 g001 550
Figure 1. Geographical representation of the collection points where searches were made for the presence of Gonipterus species and their parasitoids: (a) collection points where searches were made for Gonipterus but not found; and (b) where Gonipterus was found.
Figure 1. Geographical representation of the collection points where searches were made for the presence of Gonipterus species and their parasitoids: (a) collection points where searches were made for Gonipterus but not found; and (b) where Gonipterus was found.
Forests 12 00969 g001
Forests 12 00969 g002 550
Figure 2. Aedeagal sclerites of the 13 Gonipterus species identified. Aedeagi of the G. scutellatus cryptic species complex (a–e). Gonipterus species phylogenetically grouped with the G. scutellatus species complex (f–j). Gonipterus species not part of the G. scutellatus cryptic species complex (k–m). (a) Gonipterus sp. n. 1; (b) Gonipterus sp. n. 2; (c) Gonipterus sp. n. 3; (d) Gonipterus sp. n. 4; (e) G. pulverulentus; (f) Gonipterus sp. n. 6; (g) Gonipterus sp. 12; (h) Gonipterus sp. n. 7; (i) Gonipterus sp. 10; (j) Gonipterus sp. 11; (k) Gonipterus sp. 8; (l) G. notographus; and (m) G. cinnamomeus.
Figure 2. Aedeagal sclerites of the 13 Gonipterus species identified. Aedeagi of the G. scutellatus cryptic species complex (a–e). Gonipterus species phylogenetically grouped with the G. scutellatus species complex (f–j). Gonipterus species not part of the G. scutellatus cryptic species complex (k–m). (a) Gonipterus sp. n. 1; (b) Gonipterus sp. n. 2; (c) Gonipterus sp. n. 3; (d) Gonipterus sp. n. 4; (e) G. pulverulentus; (f) Gonipterus sp. n. 6; (g) Gonipterus sp. 12; (h) Gonipterus sp. n. 7; (i) Gonipterus sp. 10; (j) Gonipterus sp. 11; (k) Gonipterus sp. 8; (l) G. notographus; and (m) G. cinnamomeus.
Forests 12 00969 g002
Forests 12 00969 g003 550
Figure 3. Neighbour joining tree of Cytochrome Oxidase 1 (CO1) gene sequences showing the phylogenetic relationship of G. scutellatus species complex and four closely related species. Twelve clades of Gonipterus can be distinguished. Numbers below nodes indicate the similarity probability (numbers below 30% not shown). Undescribed species of Gonipterus is coded as sp. n. 1–7, unidentified species are coded as Gonipterus sp. 8, 10 and 11. Haplonyx sp. is the outgroup. Geographical location of samples indicated as well as collection number, GenBank accession numbers are used to indicate reference sequences obtained from GenBank. Branches (samples) within a species clade are collapsed if they are from the same Australian state, only GenBank samples or did not show variation within a species clade.
Figure 3. Neighbour joining tree of Cytochrome Oxidase 1 (CO1) gene sequences showing the phylogenetic relationship of G. scutellatus species complex and four closely related species. Twelve clades of Gonipterus can be distinguished. Numbers below nodes indicate the similarity probability (numbers below 30% not shown). Undescribed species of Gonipterus is coded as sp. n. 1–7, unidentified species are coded as Gonipterus sp. 8, 10 and 11. Haplonyx sp. is the outgroup. Geographical location of samples indicated as well as collection number, GenBank accession numbers are used to indicate reference sequences obtained from GenBank. Branches (samples) within a species clade are collapsed if they are from the same Australian state, only GenBank samples or did not show variation within a species clade.
Forests 12 00969 g003
Forests 12 00969 g004 550
Figure 4. Geographical distribution of the previously recognized Gonipterus sp. n. 1–4, the undescribed 6 and 7, unknown Gonipterus sp. 8, 10, 11, Gonipterus sp. 12 (variety of G. inconspicuus), G. cinnamomeus, G. notographus, and G. pulverulentus in Australia.
Figure 4. Geographical distribution of the previously recognized Gonipterus sp. n. 1–4, the undescribed 6 and 7, unknown Gonipterus sp. 8, 10, 11, Gonipterus sp. 12 (variety of G. inconspicuus), G. cinnamomeus, G. notographus, and G. pulverulentus in Australia.
Forests 12 00969 g004
Forests 12 00969 g005 550
Figure 5. Geographical distribution of Gonipterus egg parasitoid species, Anaphes nitens, Anaphes inexpectatus, Anaphes tasmaniae, Centrodora damoni, Closterocerus sp. and Euderus sp. in south-eastern Australia.
Figure 5. Geographical distribution of Gonipterus egg parasitoid species, Anaphes nitens, Anaphes inexpectatus, Anaphes tasmaniae, Centrodora damoni, Closterocerus sp. and Euderus sp. in south-eastern Australia.
Forests 12 00969 g005
Table
Table 1. Primers used for PCR amplification and sequencing of the Gonipterus species.
Table 1. Primers used for PCR amplification and sequencing of the Gonipterus species.
Primer NameDirectionRegionLocation of 3′ EndReferenceSequence (5′-3′)
C1-J-2183FCO12183Simon et al., 1994CAA CAT TTA TTT TGA TTT TTT GG
C1-N-2659cRCO12659Laffin et al., 2005ACT AAT CCT GTG AAT AAA GG
TL2-N-3014RCO13014Simon et al., 1994TCC AAT GCA CTA ATC TGC CAT ATT A
RonFCO11751Simon et al., 1994GGA TCA CCT GAT ATA GCA TTC CC
K698FCO11460Simon et al., 1994TAC AAT TTA TCG CCT AAA CTT CAG CC
K741 1999RCO12578Caterino and Sperling 1999TGG AAA TGT GCA ACT ACA TAA TA
Gon-FFCO12215Mapondera et al., 2012GGA GTA CTC GGG ATA ATT TAC G
G118RTFCO12120This studyGGA GGG GGT GAC CCT ATT T
G118RTRCO12778This studyAGT CCG AGT ATC GAC GAG GT
Note: Primers were used in the following pairs: (1) C1-J-2183 and C1-N-2659c; (2) C1-J-2183 and TL2N-N-3014; (3) Ron and K741 1999; (4) K698 and K741 1999; (5) GON-F and TL2-N-3014; and (6) G118RT F and G118RT R.
Table
Table 2. Eucalyptus species and their associated Gonipterus species. Classification of Eucalyptus species according to [44].
Table 2. Eucalyptus species and their associated Gonipterus species. Classification of Eucalyptus species according to [44].
Gonipterus SpeciesEucalyptus SpeciesSectionSubgenus
Gonipterus sp. n. 1Eucalyptus conspicua *MaidenariaSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 1Eucalyptus cinerea subsp. cinereaMaidenariaSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 1Eucalyptus crenulata *MaidenariaSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 1E. morrisbyi *MaidenariaSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 1, Gonipterus sp. n. 2, Gonipterus sp. n. 3, Gonipterus sp. 11Eucalyptus globulusMaidenariaSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 2Eucalyptus longifoliaSimilarisSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 2E. nicholiiMaidenariaSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 2Eucalyptus dunniiMaidenariaSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 2Eucalyptus benthamiiMaidenariaSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 2E. scopariaMaidenariaSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 2, Gonipterus sp. n. 3E. viminalisMaidenariaSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 2, Gonipterus sp. n. 4, Gonipterus sp. n. 6E. microcorys Alveolata
Gonipterus sp. n. 4, Gonipterus sp. 12, Gonipterus sp. n. 6E. propinquaLatoangulataeSymphyomyrtus
G. cinnamomeusE. melanophloia *AdnatariaSymphyomyrtus
Gonipterus sp. n. 7
G. notographusE. radiata subsp. radiata *AromaticaEucalyptus
* Host not previously recorded for Gonipterus spp.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schröder, M.L.; Nahrung, H.F.; de Souza, N.M.; Lawson, S.A.; Slippers, B.; Wingfield, M.J.; Hurley, B.P. Distribution of Gonipterus Species and Their Egg Parasitoids in Australia: Implications for Biological Control. Forests 2021, 12, 969. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12080969

AMA Style

Schröder ML, Nahrung HF, de Souza NM, Lawson SA, Slippers B, Wingfield MJ, Hurley BP. Distribution of Gonipterus Species and Their Egg Parasitoids in Australia: Implications for Biological Control. Forests. 2021; 12(8):969. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12080969

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schröder, Michelle L., Helen F. Nahrung, Natalia M. de Souza, Simon A. Lawson, Bernard Slippers, Michael J. Wingfield, and Brett P. Hurley. 2021. "Distribution of Gonipterus Species and Their Egg Parasitoids in Australia: Implications for Biological Control" Forests 12, no. 8: 969. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12080969

APA Style

Schröder, M. L., Nahrung, H. F., de Souza, N. M., Lawson, S. A., Slippers, B., Wingfield, M. J., & Hurley, B. P. (2021). Distribution of Gonipterus Species and Their Egg Parasitoids in Australia: Implications for Biological Control. Forests, 12(8), 969. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12080969

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