Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 1073–1085 | Cite as

Diversity, genetic structure, and population genomics of the tropical tree Centrolobium tomentosum in remnant and restored Atlantic forests

  • Erick M. G. CordeiroEmail author
  • Camila Menezes Macrini
  • Patricia Sanae Sujii
  • Kaiser Dias Schwarcz
  • José Baldin Pinheiro
  • Ricardo Ribeiro Rodrigues
  • Pedro H. S. Brancalion
  • Maria I. Zucchi
Research Article

Abstract

The rapid pace of deforestation and fragmentation that took place in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest and other global hotspots for biodiversity conservation has motivated ecosystem restoration efforts. The genetic viability of restored tree populations and their potential to conserve genetic diversity remains, however, unclear. Here, we assessed the genetic viability and potential to conserve the genetic diversity of restored populations of Centrolobium tomentosum, a native legume tree, in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, based on a genotyping by sequencing (GBS). We have successfully generated a total of 2877 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers across the whole C. tomentosum genome. Surprisingly, restoration sites presented overall higher levels of genetic diversity compared to natural remnant areas and negative inbreeding coefficient (FIS), mainly in juveniles’ trees from newer restored areas, indicating an excess of heterozygotes probably due to the founding event. The most likely number of genetic clusters found was two (K = 2), suggesting that diverse seed sources were used to produce seedlings for restoration. Clear signs of gene flow from restored to natural remnants areas had also been detected when diversity values of adults and juveniles were contrasted. Even though we did not find any clear relation of the genetic diversity and landscape composition, the low percentage of forest and high levels of fragmentation are likely reducing patch connectivity in some areas. LOSITAN detected 88 SNP outliers under positive selection, but analysis with Bayescan failed to support this evidence. In conclusion, our post hoc evaluation of restored tree populations indicated that the old restored area is stable and new areas have great potential to contribute to conserving genetic diversity and increasing the chances of the natural populations to persist over time.

Keywords

Active restoration Conservation genetics Ecological restoration Landscape genetics Forest restoration Restoration plantations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We want to FAPESP (Industry) for the postdoc assistantships: CMM (FAPESP; Grant #2011/50296-8), EMGC (FAPESP; Grant #2017/02393-0), doctorate: KDS (FAPESP; Grant #2015/06349-0), EAS (FAPESP; Grant #2015/15536-9), and PSB (FAPESP; Grant #2014/01364-9). MIZ and PHSB thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development of Brazil (CNPq; Grant #310446/2015-5, CNPq; Grant #304817/2015-5).

Funding

This study was fully funded by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, Portuguese: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) and The Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Portuguese: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico). Sponsors have no role in the study design, data collection, and data analysis, or manuscript preparation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Mention of trade names is solely for specific details of the conducted research and does not imply endorsement or recommendation by CNPq, FAPESP, or the authors.

Supplementary material

10592_2019_1195_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (448 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 447 kb)

References

  1. Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, de Moraes Gonçalves JL, Sparovek G (2013) Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol Z 22:711–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amazonas NT, Martinelli LA, Piccolo MC, Rodrigues RR (2011) Nitrogren dynamics during ecosystem development in tropical forest restoration. For Ecol Manage 262:1551–1557.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen LW, Fog K, Damgaard C (2004) Habitat fragmentation causes bottlenecks and inbreeding in the European tree frog (Hyla arborea). Proc Biol Sci 271:1293–1302.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2720 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrén H, Andren H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3545823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antao T, Lopes A, Lopes RJ, Beja-Pereira A, Luikart G (2008) LOSITAN: a workbench to detect molecular adaptation based on a Fst-outlier method. BMC Bioinform 9:323.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Pineda E, Escobar F, Benítez-Malvido J (2009) Value of small patches in the conservation of plant-species diversity in highly fragmented rainforest. Conserv Biol 23:729–739.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01120.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Baums IB (2008) A restoration genetics guide for coral reef conservation. Mol Ecol 17:2796–2811.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03787.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertacchi MIF, Amazonas NT, Brancalion PHS, Brondani GE, de Oliveira ACS, de Pascoa MAR, Rodrigues RR (2016) Establishment of tree seedlings in the understory of restoration plantations: natural regeneration and enrichment plantings. Restor Ecol 24:100–108.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brancalion PHS, Cardozo IV, Camatta A, Aronson J, Rodrigues RR (2014) Cultural ecosystem services and popular perceptions of the benefits of an ecological restoration project in the Brazilian atlantic forest. Restor Ecol 22:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brancalion PHS, Schweizer D, Gaudare U, Mangueira JR, Lamonato F, Farah FT, Nave AG, Rodrigues RR (2016) Balancing economic costs and ecological outcomes of passive and active restoration in agricultural landscapes: the case of Brazil. Biotropica 48:856–867.  https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brancalion PHS, Bello C, Chazdon RL, Galetti M, Jordano P, Lima RAF, Medina A, Pizo MA, Reid JL (2018) Maximizing biodiversity conservation and carbon stocking in restored tropical forests. Conserv Lett 11:e12454.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12454 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cain ML, Milligan BG, Strand AE (2000) Long-distance seed dispersal in plant populations. Am J Bot 87:1217–1227.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2656714 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Catchen J, Hohenlohe PA, Bassham S, Amores A, Cresko WA (2013) Stacks: an analysis tool set for population genomics. Mol Ecol 22:3124–3140.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12354 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Chaves RB, Durigan G, Brancalion PHS, Aronson J (2015) On the need of legal frameworks for assessing restoration projects success: new perspectives from Sao Paulo state (Brazil). Restoration Ecol 23:754–759.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. da Silva FR, Montoya D, Furtado R, Memmott J, Pizo MA, Rodrigues RR (2015) The restoration of tropical seed dispersal networks. Restor Ecol 23:852–860.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis MB, Shaw RG (2001) Range shifts and adaptive responses to quaternary climate change. Science 292:673–679.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.292.5517.673 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. De Souza FM, Batista JLF (2004) Restoration of seasonal semideciduous forests in Brazil: influence of age and restoration design on forest structure. For Ecol Manage 191:185–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL (1987) A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem Bull 19:11–15Google Scholar
  19. Earl DA, vonHoldt BM (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:359–361.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elshire RJ, Glaubitz JC, Sun Q, Poland JA, Kawamoto K, Buckler ES, Mitchell SE (2011) A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS ONE 6:e19379.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019379 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 12:2611–2620.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2003) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164:1567–1587.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01758.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer J, Sherren K, Stott J, Zerger A, Warren G, Stein J (2010) Toward landscape-wide conservation outcomes in Australia’s temperate grazing region. Front Ecol Environ 8:69–74.  https://doi.org/10.1890/080170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foll M, Gaggiotti O (2008) A genome-scan method to identify selected loci appropriate for both dominant and codominant markers: a Bayesian perspective. Genetics 180:977–993.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.108.092221 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Frankham R (1995) Effective population size—adult size ratios in wildlife—a review. Genet Res 89:491–503.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672308009695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frankham R (1996) Relationship of Genetic Variation to Population Size in Wildlife. Conserv Biol 10:1500–1508.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10061500.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126:131–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guaratini MTG, Gomes EPC, Tamashiro JY, Rodrigues RR (2008) Composição florística da reserva municipal de Santa Genebra, Campinas, SP. Revista Brasil Bot 31:323–337.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-84042008000200015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guirao AC, Filho JT (2011) Preservação de um fragmento florestal urbano—Estudo de caso: a ARIE Mata de Santa Genebra, Campinas-SP. GEUSP: Espaço e Tempo, São Paulo 29:147–158Google Scholar
  30. Higgs ES (1997) What is good ecological restoration? Conserv Biol 11:338–348.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95311.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hufford KM, Mazer SJ (2003) Plant ecotypes: genetic differentiation in the age of ecological restoration. Trends Ecol Evol 18:147–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00002-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA (2007) CLUMPP: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23:1801–1806.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm233 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jung M (2016) LecoS—a python plugin for automated landscape ecology analysis. Ecol Inform 31:18–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keller L, Waller D (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:230–241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(02)02489-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lamb D, Erskine PD, Parrotta JA (2005) Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science 310:1628–1632.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111773 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lande R, Shannon S (1996) The role of genetic variation in adaptation and population persistence in a changing environment. Evolution 50:434–437.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2410812 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lesica P, Allendorf FW (1999) Ecological genetics and the restoration of plant communities: mix or match? Restor Ecol 7:42–50.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.1999.07105.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lischer HEL, Excoffier L (2012) PGDSpider: an automated data conversion tool for connecting population genetics and genomics programs. Bioinformatics 28:298–299.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr642 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Manel S, Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Taberlet P (2003) Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends Ecol Evol 18:189–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00008-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Univ. Massachusettes, Amherst. https://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
  41. McKay JK, Bishop JG, Lin JZ, Richards JH, Sala A, Mitchell-Olds T (2001) Local adaptation across a climatic gradient despite small effective population size in the rare sapphire rockcress. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 268:1715–1721.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKay JK, Christian CE, Harrison S, Rice KJ (2005) “How local is local?”A review of practical and conceptual issues in the genetics of restoration. Restor Ecol 13:432–440.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00058.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Montalvo AM, Ellstrand NC (2001) Nonlocal transplantation and outbreeding depression in the subshrub Lotus scoparius (Fabaceae). Am J Bot 88:258–269.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2657017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Montalvo AM, Williams SL, Rice KJ, Buchmann SL, Cory C, Handel SN, Nabhan GP, Primack R, Robichaux RH (1997) Restoration biology: a population biology perspective. Restor Ecol 5:277–290.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.1997.00542.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Narum SR, Hess JE (2011) Comparison of FST outlier tests for SNP loci under selection. Mol Ecol 11:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Novello M, Viana JPG, Alves-Pereira A, de Aguiar Silvestre E, Nunes HF, Pinheiro JB, Brancalion PHS, Zucchi MI (2018) Genetic conservation of a threatened Neotropical palm through community-management of fruits in agroforests and second-growth forests. For Ecol Manage 407:200–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.06.059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paris JR, Stevens JR, Catchen JM (2017) Lost in parameter space: a road map for STACKS. Methods Ecol Evol 8:1360–1373.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parker KM, Sheffer RJ, Hedrick PW (1999) Molecular variation and evolutionarily significant units in the endangered Gila topminnow. Conserv Biol 13:108–116.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97460.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01758.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Raeymaekers JAM, Konijnendijk N, Larmuseau MHD, Hellemans B, Meester L, Volckaert FAM (2013) A gene with major phenotypic effects as a target for selection vs. homogenizing gene flow. Mol Ecol 23:161–181Google Scholar
  51. REFLORA (2019) Brazilian Plants: historic rescue and virtual herbarium for knowledge and conservation of the Brazilian flora. In: REFLORA. http://reflora.jbrj.gov.br. Accessed 14 April 2019
  52. Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM (2009) The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 142:1141–1153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rice KJ, Emery NC (2003) Managing microevolution: restoration in the face of global change. Front Ecol Environ 1:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rochette CR, Catchen JM (2017) Deriving genotypes from RAD-seq short-read data using stacks. Nat Protoc 12:2640–2659.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2017.123 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Rodrigues RR, Gandolfi S, Nave AG, Aronson J, Barreto TE, Vidal CY, Brancalion PHS (2011) Large-scale ecological restoration of high-diversity tropical forests in SE Brazil. For Ecol Manag 261:1605–1613.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenberg NA (2004) DISTRUCT: a program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol Ecol Notes 4:137–138.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-8286.2003.00566.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sansevero JBB, Prieto PV, de Moraes LFD, Rodrigues PJFP (2011) Natural regeneration in plantations of native trees in lowland Brazilian Atlantic forest: community structure, diversity, and dispersal syndromes. Restor Ecol 19:79–389.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00556.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwarcz KD (2014) Genetic feasibility of forest restorations: genetic diversity and structure in Myroxylon peruiferum L.f. Doctoral dissertation, University of CampinasGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwarcz KD, Silvestre EA, de Campos JB, Sujii PS, Grando C, Macrini CMT, de Souza AP, Pinheiro JB, Brancalion PHS, Rodrigues RR, Zucchi MI (2018) Shelter from the storm: restored populations of the neotropical tree Myroxylon peruiferum are as genetically diverse as those from conserved remnants. For Ecol Manage 410:95–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.12.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schweizer D, Machado R, Durigan G, Brancalion PHS (2015) Phylogenetic patterns of Atlantic forest restoration communities are mainly driven by stochastic, dispersal related factors. For Ecol Manage 354:300–308.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.05.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Segelbacher G, Cushman S, Epperson B, Fortin M, Francois O, Hardy O, Holderegger R, Taberlet P, Waits L, Manel S (2010) Applications of landscape genetics in conservation biology: concepts and challenges. Conserv Genet 11:375–385.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-009-0044-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  63. Silva CC (2013) Potential of natives species to produce timber in forest restoration plantings. Master thesis, University of São Paulo-ESALQGoogle Scholar
  64. Silvestre EDA, Schwarcz KD, Grando C, De Campos JB, Sujii PS, Tambarussi EV, Macrini CMT, Pinheiro JB, Brancalion PHS, Zucchi MI (2018) Mating system and effective population size of the overexploited neotropical tree (Myroxylon peruiferum L.f.) and their impact on seedling production. J Hered 109:264–271.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esx096 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Spielman D, Brook BW, Frankham R (2004) Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors impact them. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:15261–15264.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403809101 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Stoeckel S, Grange J, Fernández-Manjarres JF, Bilger I, Frascaria-Lacoste N, Mariette S (2006) Heterozygote excess in a self-incompatible and partially clonal forest tree species—Prunus avium L. Mol Ecol 15:2109–2118.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02926.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Storfer A (1996) Quantitative genetics: a promising approach for the assessment of genetic variation in endangered species. Trends Ecol Evol 11:343–348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)20051-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Sujii PS (2016) Genetic diversity, structure and mating system of Centrolobium tomentosum Guillem. Doctoral dissertation, University of CampinasGoogle Scholar
  69. Sujii PS, Schwarcz KD, Grando C, de Aguiar Silvestre E, Mori GM, Brancalion PHS, Zucchi MI (2017) Recovery of genetic diversity levels of a Neotropical tree in Atlantic Forest restoration plantations. Biol Conserv 211:110–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tulloch AIT, Barnes MD, Ringma J, Fuller RA, Watson JEM (2016) Understanding the importance of small patches of habitat for conservation. J Appl Ecol 53:418–429.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Viana JPG, Siqueira MVBM, Araujo FL, Grando C, Sujii PS, De Aguiar Silvestre E, Novello M, Pinheiro JB, Cavallari MM, Brancalion PHS, Rodrigues RR, De Souza AP, Catchen J, Zucchi MI (2018) Genomic diversity is similar between Atlantic Forest restorations and natural remnants for the native tree Casearia sylvestris Sw. PLoS ONE 13:e0192165.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2408641 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Whitlock MC, Mccauley DE (1999) Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: F(ST) ≠ 1/(4Nm + 1). Heredity 82:117–125.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6884960 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Williams AV, Nevill PG, Krauss SL (2014) Next generation restoration genetics: applications and opportunities. Trends Plant Sci 19:529–537.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2014.03.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Zucchi MI, Sujii PS, Mori GM, Viana JPG, Grando C, Silvestre EA, Schwarcz KD, Macrini CM, Bajay MM, Araújo FL, Siqueira MVBM, Alves-Pereira A, Souza AP, Pinheiro JB, Rodrigues RR, Brancalion PHS (2017) Genetic diversity of reintroduced tree populations in restoration plantations of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Restor Ecol 26:694–701.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12620 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zurbuchen A, Landert L, Klaiber J, Müller A, Hein S, Dorn S (2010) Maximum foraging ranges in solitary bees: only few individuals have the capability to cover long foraging distances. Biol Conserv 143:669–676.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Entomology and Acarology, Luiz de Queiroz College of AgricultureUniversity of Sao Paulo-ESALQPiracicabaBrazil
  2. 2.Institute of BiologyUniversity of CampinasCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Genetics, Luiz de Queiroz College of AgricultureUniversity of Sao PauloPiracicabaBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Biological Sciences, Luiz de Queiroz College of AgricultureUniversity of Sao PauloPiracicabaBrazil
  5. 5.Departament Forest Sciences, Luiz de Queiroz College of AgricultureUniversity of Sao PauloPiracicabaBrazil
  6. 6.Agência Paulista de Tecnologia dos Agronegócios, Pólo Regional Centro-SulPiracicabaBrazil

Personalised recommendations