Understanding Species Implications for IPM

1. Understanding SpeciesImplications for IPM

2. Malaria causes around 1.3 million deaths a year worldwide

3. Control of malaria heavily relies on control of its vector Anopheles maculipennis

4. What was thought to be A. maculipennis was actually a complex of 7 species

5. Different species of mosquitoes differ in their ability to carry Plasmodium

6. Presence of Anopheles but not malaria mystery solved!

7. Cryptic or Sibling Species

8. Cryptic or Sibling Species • Species that are virtually identical in their morphology Nilapavarta (Homoptera: Delphacidae) Rice (Oryza sativa) Weed grass (Leersia hexandra)

9. Cryptic or Sibling Species • Widespread in nature

10. Cryptic or Sibling Species • Present among insects of economic importance Oncopsis (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) Bactrocera (Diptera: Tephritidae)

11. Cryptic or Sibling Species • Usually associated with different plant or host species Archips (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

12. ID of species on morphological grounds is often not good enough

13. What initially seems to be a single poly or oligophagous species could represent a collection of cryptic species Nilapavarta (Homoptera: Delphacidae) Rice (Oryza sativa) Weed grass (Leersia hexandra)

14. What initially seems to be a single poly or oligophagous species could represent a collection of cryptic species Nilapavarta (Homoptera: Delphacidae) Rice (Oryza sativa) Weed grass (Leersia hexandra)

15. California Correct identification of organisms is essential for any intelligent interpretation of biological control Red scale Aonidiella auranti (Homoptera: Margarodidae)

16. The red scale was originally classified in the wrong genus Aonidiella auranti (Homoptera: Margarodidae) Chrysomphalus

17. The red and yellow scale insects were not separated taxonomically until 1937 Aonidiella aurantii

18. California Parasitoids of the yellow scale were introduced in California to control the red scale failing to establish China Aonidiella aurantii

19. California Parasitoids of the yellow scale were introduced to California to control the red scale failing to establish China Aonidiella aurantii It was concluded that no parasitoids to control the red scale existed in Asia

20. California Since 1880 an aphelinid parasitoid had been known to attack red scale insects Aphytis chrysomphali (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) Red scale (Homoptera: Margarodidae)

21. Compere found in China that the red scale insect was kept at low densities by an Aphytis species Aphytis lingnanensis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) George Compere China

22. The Aphytis species found by Compere was identified as Aphytis mytilaspidis Aphytis lingnanensis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) Aphytis mytilaspidis George Compere China

23. California Aphytis mytilaspidiswas already present in California Aphytis lingnanensis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) Aphytis mytilaspidis George Compere

24. California Aphyitis mytilaspidis does not attack red scale insects in California Aphytis lingnanensis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) Aphytis mytilaspidis George Compere

25. California Aphytis chrysomphali, also present in California, was also erroneously named A. mytilaspidis Aphytis chrysomphali (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) Aphytis mytilaspidis George Compere

26. California Thus, it was erroneously concluded that the parasitoid found in China controlling the red scale was already present in California Aphytis chrysomphali (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) Aphytis mytilaspidis George Compere

27. The 50 year failure of red scale insect control was based on a series of misidentifications. • Searches made in South America instead of in Asia. • Introduction of unsuitable parasitoids. • Failure to introduce the right parasitoid because it was misidentified as already present in California.

28. The Red Scale Insect Control in California • One of the best examples of a long term failure turned into a success by the eventual introduction of appropriate natural enemies. Aphytis lingnanensis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) • Illustrates the need to understand the limits of cryptic species.

29. Can we predict where to expect cryptic species to occur?

30. Different activity cycles 4-5 weeks

31. Specific mate recognition keeps species reproductively isolated Diurnal Nocturnal

32. Some organisms recognize each other through tactile or sonic clues

33. Others recognize each other through complex mating behaviors Coccophagus spp.

34. If non visual ways of mate recognition are present Exceptionally generalized habits or ecologies ?

35. Biological differences across space

36. Biological differences across space

37. So how can we tell? ? =

38. Experimental approaches: Behavioral observations in nature

39. Experimental approaches: Cross-mating experiments Control Experiment Control x x x a a a b b b x b a CAUTION! a b

40. Molecular genetics techniques Allozymes & DNA • Use as markers when limits have been defined by other means. • Use to measure differences in allele frequencies to establish differentiation.

41. Cytogenetics Polytene Chromosome

42. Analysis of mating signal structure and function

43. Cryptic Species Pose a Problem for IPM • In assessments of: - Pest status - Biocontrol potential - Host specificity

44. Cryptic Species Pose a Problem for IPM • In assessments of: • - Geographic distribution • - Activity cycles • - Pesticide resistance