Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 13–22 | Cite as

Larval morphology and host use confirms ecotypic variation in Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg)

  • Christopher P. BrooksEmail author
  • Brice H. Lambert
  • Kristen E. Sauby
  • Gary N. Ervin
  • Laura Varone
  • Guillermo A. Logarzo
Original Paper

Abstract

Despite their recognized importance in the literature, the contribution of native-range species interactions to invasion success has been inadequately studied. Previous authors have suggested that biases in the sampling of propagules from the native range might influence invasion success, but most contemporary invasion hypotheses focus on the development of novel interactions or a release from native consumers and competitors. When ecotypic variation exists in native host-consumer associations, the specific pattern of sampling across ecotypes could determine invasion success, especially when the genetic diversity among exotic propagules is low. The South American cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg), is an oligophagous consumer whose larvae feed on prickly pear cacti (subfamily Opuntioideae). The moth was collected from a small geographic area along the Argentina-Uruguay border in 1925 and was introduced to multiple continents as a biological control species, which has subsequently invaded North America. Here we show that groups defined by genetic structure in this species’ native range are concordant with distinct patterns of host association and larval morphology. Furthermore, in Florida populations, morphological traits have diverged from those found in the native range, and patterns of host association suggest that strong biases in host preference also occur in invasive populations. The documented history of C. cactorum introductions confirms that multiple attempts were made to export the moth, but that only a single ecotype was exported successfully. Additional work will be necessary to determine whether the observed host biases in North America reflect a rapid adaptation to naïve hosts or a conservation of traits related to specific aspects of the host-consumer association.

Keywords

Ecotype Cactoblastis cactorum Argentina Florida Opuntia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by grants from the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Discipline (08HQAG0139) to CPB and GNE, (04HQAG0135) to GNE and U.S. Department of Agriculture (2007-55320-17847) to GNE. Additional funds were provided by the Mississippi State University Office of Research and Economic Development and the College of Arts and Sciences to CPB and GNE. We thank Anastasia Woodard for assistance with sample collection and Florida State Parks for access to sites for sampling. The Nokuse Plantation (located in Bruce, FL, USA) provided lodging during some of the sampling trips.

References

  1. Andow DA (1991) Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Annu Rev Entomol 36:561–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbosa P, Hines J, Kaplan I, Martinson H, Szczepaniec A, Szendrei Z (2009) Associational resistance and associational susceptibility: having right or wrong neighbors. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blossey B (1995) Host specificity screening of insect biological control agents as part of an environmental risk assessment. In: Hokkanen HMT, Lynch JM (eds) Biological control: benefits and risks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 84–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks CP, Ervin GN, Varone L, Logarzo GA (2012) Native ecotypic variation and the role of host identity in the spread of an invasive herbivore, Cactoblastis cactorum. Ecology 93:402–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunner PC, Frey JE (2010) Habitat-specific population structure in native western flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis (Insecta, Thysanoptera). J Evol Biol 23:797–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Catford JA, Jansson R, Nilsson C (2009) Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Div Dist 15:22–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colautti RI, Ricciardi A, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2004) Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol Lett 7:721–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dodd AP (1927) The biological control of prickly pear in Australia. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Commonwealth of Aust., Bull. No. 34Google Scholar
  9. Dodd AP (1940) The biological campaign against prickly-pear. Commonwealth Prickly Pear Board, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellison CA, Evans HC, Djeddour DH, Thomas SE (2008) Biology and host range of the rust fungus Puccinia spegazzinii: a new classical biological control agent for the invasive alien weed Mikania micrantha in Asia. Biol Control 45:133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ervin GN (2012) Indian fig cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller) in the Americas: an uncertain history. Haseltonia 17:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Futuyma DJ, Keese MC, Funk DJ (1995) Genetic constraints on macroevolution: the evolution of host affiliation in the leaf beetle genus Ophraella. Evolution 49(797):809Google Scholar
  13. Goldson SL, Phillips CB, McNeil MR, Barlow ND (1997) The potential of parasitoid strains in biological control: observations to date on Microctonus spp. intraspecific variation in New Zealand. Agric Ecosys Env 64:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hedrick PW, King E (1996) Genetics and environment in interspecific competition: a study using the sibling species Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans. Oecologia 108:72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holland BS (2001) Invasion without a bottleneck: microsatellite variation in natural and invasive populations of the brown mussel Perna perna (L). Mar Biotech 3:407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holt RD, Dobson AP, Begon M, Bowers RG, Schauber EM (2003) Parasite establishment in host communities. Ecol Lett 6:837–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jezorek HA, Stiling PD, Carpenter JE (2010) Targets of an invasive species: oviposition preference and larval performance of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on 14 North American Opuntioid cacti. Environ Entomol 39:1884–1892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson DM, Stiling PD (1996) Host specificity of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), an exotic Opuntia-feeding moth, in Florida. Environ Entomol 25:743–748Google Scholar
  19. Johnston TH and Tryon H (1914) Report of the prickly-pear travelling commission. Commonwealth Prickly-Pear BoardGoogle Scholar
  20. Kanarek AR, Webb CT (2010) Allee effects, adaptive evolution, and invasion successs. Evol Appl 3:122–135PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kang M, Buckley YM, Lowe AJ (2007) Testing the role of genetic factors across multiple independent invasions of the shrub Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius). Mol Ecol 16:4662–4673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kiesling R (2005) Cactaceae. In: N.M. Bacigalupo (ed.): Flora Ilustrada de Entre Ríos, parte IV Dicotiledoneas Arquiclamideas B: Geraniales a Umbeliflorales. Colección Científica del Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria 4:401–444Google Scholar
  23. Linde M, Diel S, Neuffer B (2001) Flowering ecotypes of Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. (Brassicaceae) analysed by a cosegregation of phenotypic characters (QTL) and molecular markers. Ann Bot 87:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mafokoane LD, Zimmerman HG, Hill MP (2007) Development of Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on six North American Opuntia species. Afr Entomol 15:295–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Majure LC, Puente R, Griffith MP, Judd WS, Soltis PS, Soltis DE (2012) Phylogeny of Opuntia s.s. (Cactaceae): clade delineation, geographic origins, and reticulate evolution. Am J Bot 99:847–864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marsico TD, Wallace LE, Ervin GE, Brooks CP, McClure JE, Welch ME (2011) Geographic patterns of genetic diversity from the native range of Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg) support the documented history of invasion and multiple introductions for invasive populations. Biol Invasions 13:857–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McFadyen RA (1985) Larval characteristics of Cactoblastis spp. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and the selection of species for biological control of prickly pears (Opuntia spp.). Bull Entomol Res 75:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neuffer B, Hurka H (1999) Colonization history and introduction dynamics of Capsella bursa-pastoris (Brassicaceae) in North America: isozymes and quantitative traits. Mol Ecol 8:1667–1681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Novak SJ and Mack RN (2005) Genetic bottlenecks in alien plant species: influence of mating systems and introduction dynamics. pp. 95–122 In: Exotic Species—Bane to Conservation and Boon to Understanding: Ecology, Evolution and Biogeography. Sax DF, Gaines SD, and Stachowicz JJ (eds.). Sinauer, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. Novak SJ and Sforza R (2008) Genetic analysis of native and introduced populations of Taeniatherum caput-medusae (Poaceae): Implications for biological control. Proceedings 12th International symposium biological control weeds. 22nd-27th April 2007, La Grande Motte, France. pp 422–28Google Scholar
  31. Ostfeld RS, Keesing F (2000a) Biodiversity and disease risk: the case of Lyme disease. Conserv Biol 14:722–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ostfeld RS, Keesing F (2000b) The function of biodiversity in the ecology of vector-borne zoonotic diseases. Can J Zool 78:2061–2078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pettey FW (1948) The biological control of prickly pears in South Africa. Department of agriculture science bulletin 271. Government Printer, Pretoria, p 163Google Scholar
  34. Robertson HG (1987) Oviposition site selection in Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera): constraints and compromises. Oecologia 73:601–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roman J, Darling J (2007) Paradox lost: genetic variation and the success of aquatic invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:454–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sauby KE, Marsico TD, Ervin GN, Brooks CP (2012) The role of host identity in determining the distribution of the invasive cactus moth Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Florida. Fla Entomol 95:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simmonds FJ, Bennett FD (1966) Biological control of Opuntia spp. by Cactoblastis cactorum in the Leeward Islands (West Indies). Entomophaga 11:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tate CD, Hight SD, Carpenter JE (2009) Oviposition preference of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in caged choice experiments and the influence on risk assessment of F1 sterility. Biocontrol Sci Tech 19:317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson JP (1982) Interaction and coevolution. J Wiley 179 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson JN (1994) The coevolutionary process. Univ of Chicago Press 387 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson JN (2005) The geographic mosaic of coevolution. Univ of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Varone L, Manteca Acosta M, Logarzo GA, Briano JA, Hight SD, Carpenter JE (2012) Laboratory performance of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on South and North American Opuntia species occurring in Argentina. Fla Entomol 95:1163–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wares JP, Hughes AR, Grosberg RK (2005) Mechanisms that drive evolutionary change: insights from species introductions and invasions. pp. 229–257 in: Species Invasions: Insights into Ecology, Evolution, and Biogeography. Sax DF, Stachowicz JJ, Gaines SD, (eds). Sinauer, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. Woodard AM, Ervin GN, Marsico TD (2012) Host plant defense signaling in response to a coevolved herbivore combats introduced herbivore attack. Ecol Evolut 2:1056–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher P. Brooks
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brice H. Lambert
    • 1
  • Kristen E. Sauby
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gary N. Ervin
    • 1
  • Laura Varone
    • 3
  • Guillermo A. Logarzo
    • 3
  1. 1. Department of Biological Sciences and Geosystems Research InstituteMississippi State UniversityMississippiUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.FuEDEI Fundación para el Estudio de Especies InvasivasHurlinghamArgentina

Personalised recommendations