Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 196, Issue 3, pp 397–411 | Cite as

Genetic variation in Eucalyptus camaldulensis and E. tereticornis for early growth and susceptibility to the gall wasp Leptocybe invasa in China

  • Jianzhong Luo
  • Roger Arnold
  • Wanhong Lu
  • Yan Lin
Article

Abstract

The gall wasp Leptocybe invasa is a major insect pest on plantation Eucalyptus in many countries. Since appearing in China in 2007 it has had major impacts on commercial plantations—some commonly planted Eucalyptus varieties have proven particularly susceptible, including hybrids involving Eucalyptus camaldulensis and E. tereticornis parent species. Intra-specific variation within each species for L. invasa susceptibility was examined in two seed source and family trials in southwest of Guangdong. The E. camaldulensis trial included 101 seedlots representing five natural stand and six seed orchard sources which also represented three sub-specific taxa. The E. tereticornis trial included 143 seedlots representing 11 natural stand and four seed orchard sources, including breeding seed orchards in China. Both trials were assessed for susceptibility to L. invasa along with height at age 9 months. Sub-specific taxa within E. camaldulensis differed significantly (P < 0.01) in L. invasa susceptibility but not height or survival; subsp. acuta had the lowest average susceptibility and subsp. simulata and obtusa were of intermediate susceptibility whilst material of uncertain sub-specific taxa from India had the highest average susceptibility. In E. tereticornis regions of origin and seed sources within regions differed significantly (P < 0.01) for both L. invasa susceptibility and height; the region China (all somewhat improved sources) had both the best average height growth and lowest susceptibility whilst the region Australia (all natural stand sources) proved inferior to China for both average susceptibility and height. A strong significant correlation was found between seed source average L. invasa susceptibility and annual rainfall at seed source geographic origin in E. tereticornis (r = −0.873; P < 0.01), implying that seedlots from higher rainfall environments are markedly less susceptible to L. invasa. The equivalent parameter in E. camaldulensis was also strong (r = −0.730) though not significant, perhaps due to having only five data points available. Differences between families within seed sources for both L. invasa susceptibility and height growth were also highly significant (P < 0.01) with the former trait proving moderately to strongly heritable (h i 2  = 0.54 ± 0.40 in E. camaldulensis; 0.52 ± 0.50 in E. tereticornis). Height had low to moderate heritability in both species (h i 2  = 0.11 ± 0.15 and 0.26 ± 0.08 respectively). Tree height and L. invasa susceptibility showed a moderate negative (favourable) genetic correlation in E. camaldulensis (−0.33 ± 0.64) and a moderate to strong negative (favourable) genetic correlation in E. tereticornis (−0.47 ± 0.31). Corresponding phenotypic correlations, though significant, were somewhat weaker (−0.16 and −0.29 respectively), indicating a trend for taller trees to have lower levels of L. invasa susceptibility.

Keywords

Leptocybe invasa Gall wasp Eucalyptus Insect pests Susceptibility Heritability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to both the China Eucalypt Research Centre and the China Eucalypt Breeding Alliance for their support of these field trials and the study reported here. We are also grateful to two anonymous referees who provided constructive criticisms and suggestions which helped markedly improve this paper.

References

  1. Andrew RL, Peakall R, Wallis IR, Wood JT, Knight EJ, Foley WJ (2005) Marker-based quantitative genetics in the wild? The heritability and genetic correlation of chemical defences in Eucalyptus. Genetics 171:1989–1998PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrew RL, Wallis IR, Harwood CE, Henson M, Foley WJ (2007) Heritable variation in the foliar secondary metabolite sideroxylonal in Eucalyptus confers cross-resistance to herbivores. Oecologia 153:891–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2013) Leptocybe invasa. BiCEP. http://bicep.net.au/. Accessed 17 July 2013
  4. Arnold RJ, Xie YJ, Midgley SJ, Luo JZ, Chen XF (2013) Emergence and rise of eucalypt veneer production in China. Int For Rev 15:33–47Google Scholar
  5. Barr C, Cossalter C (2004) China’s development of a plantation-based industry: government policies, financial incentives, and investment trends. Int For Rev 6:267–281Google Scholar
  6. Becker WA (1984) Manual of quantitative genetics. Academic Enterprises, PullmanGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooker MIH (2000) A new classification of the genus Eucalyptus. Aust Syst Bot 13:79–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess IP, Williams ER, Bell JC, Harwood CE, Owen JV (1996) The effect of outcrossing rate on the growth of selected families of Eucalyptus grandis. Silvae Genet 45:97–100Google Scholar
  9. Bush D, Marcar N, Arnold R, Crawford D (2013) Assessing genetic variation within Eucalyptus camaldulensis for survival and growth on two spatially variable saline sites in southern Australia. For Ecol Manag 306:68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butcher PA, Williams ER (2003) Variation in outcrossing rates and growth in Eucalyptus camaldulensis from the Petford region, Queensland; evidence of outbreeding depression. Silvae Genet 51:6–12Google Scholar
  11. Chang RL, Zhou XD (2010) Research status on Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle in foreign countries. For Pest Dis 29:22–25 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  12. Chang RL, Arnold RJ, Zhou XD (2012) Association between activity levels of five defensive enzymes in four commercial Eucalyptus clones and their susceptibility to attack from the shoot gall wasp, Leptocybe invasa, in south China. J Trop For Sci 24:256–264Google Scholar
  13. Chen S, Arnold RJ, Li Z, Li T, Zhou G, Zhou Q (2011) Tree and stand growth for clonal E. urophylla × grandis across a range of initial stockings in southern China. New For 41:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dittrich-Schröder G, Wingfield MJ, Hurley BP, Slippers B (2012) Diversity in Eucalyptus susceptibility to the gall-forming wasp Leptocybe invasa. Agric For Entomol 14:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doran JC, Matheson AC (1994) Genetic parameters and expected gains from selection for monoterpene yields in Petford Eucalyptus camaldulensis. New For 8:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Durand N, Rodrigues JC, Mateus E, Boavida C, Branco M (2011) Susceptibility variation in Eucalyptus spp. in relation to Leptocybe invasa and Ophelimus maskelli (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), two invasive gall wasps occurring in Portugal. Silva Lusitana 19:19–31Google Scholar
  17. Eldridge KG, Davidson J, Harwood CE, Van Wyk G (1993) Eucalypt domestication and breeding. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Grieser J (2006) New LocClim 1.10—local climate estimator. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  19. Jordan GJ, Potts BM, Clarke AR (2002) Susceptibility of Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus to sawfly (Perga affinis ssp. insularis) attack and its potential impact on plantation productivity. For Ecol Manag 160:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kavitha Kumari N (2009) Bioecology and management of eucalyptus gall wasp, Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle (Eulophidae: Hymenoptera). MSc Dissertation, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  21. Krishnakumar N, Jacob JP (2010) Eucalyptus gall: a recent invasive in man-modified forest ecosystem in Andhra Pradesh. Karnataka J Agric Sci 23:217–219Google Scholar
  22. Kulkarni HD (2010) Screening eucalyptus clones against Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La sale (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Karnataka J Agric Sci 23:87–90Google Scholar
  23. Luo J, Zhou G, Wu D, Chen D, Cao J, Lu W, Pegg RE, Arnold RJ (2010) Genetic variation and age–age correlations Eucalyptus grandis in southern China. Aust For 73:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luo JZ, Arnold RJ, Cao JG, Lu WH, Ren SQ, Xie YJ (2012) Variation in pulp wood traits between eucalypt clones across sites and implications for deployment strategies. J Trop For Sci 24:70–82Google Scholar
  25. McDonald MW, Brooker MIH, Butcher PA (2009) A taxonomic revision of Eucalyptus camaldulensis (Myrtaceae). Aust Syst Bot 22:257–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mendel Z, Protasov A, Fisher N, La Salle J (2004) Taxanomy and biology of Leptocybe invasa gen & sp. (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) an invasive gall inducer on Eucalyptus. Aust J Entomol 43:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Midgley SJ (2013) Making a difference: celebrating success in Asia. Aust For 76:73–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nyeko P, Nakabonge G (2008) Occurrence of pests and diseases in tree nurseries and plantations in Uganda: a study commissioned by the Sawlog Production Grant Scheme (SPGS). Department of Forest Biology and Ecosystems Management, Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Makerere University, Kampala, UgandaGoogle Scholar
  29. Nyeko P, Mutitu KE, Otieno BO, Ngae GN, Day RK (2010) Variations in Leptocybe invasa (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) population intensity and infestation on eucalyptus germplasms in Uganda and Kenya. Int J Pest Manag 56:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Raymond CA (2002) Genetics of Eucalyptus wood properties. Ann For Sci 59:525–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stackpole DJ, Vaillancourt RE, Alves A, Rodrigues J, Potts BM (2011) Genetic variation in the chemical components of Eucalyptus globulus wood. G3 1:151–159PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tang C, Wang XJ, Wan FH, Ren SX, Peng ZQ (2008) The blue gum chalcid, Leptocybe invasa, invaded Hainan province. Chin Bull Entomol 45:967–971Google Scholar
  33. Thu PQ, Dell B, Burgess TI (2009) Susceptibility of 18 eucalypt species to the gall wasp Leptocybe invasa in the nursery and young plantations in Vietnam. ScienceAsia 35:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turnbull JW (2007) Development of sustainable forestry plantations in China: a review. ACIAR Impact Assessment Series Report No. 45. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  35. Wei RP (2005) Genetic diversity and sustainable productivity of eucalypt plantations in China. In: Wang H (ed) Changing patterns: tree introduction and phytogeography. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, pp 19–27 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  36. Williams ER, Matheson AC, Harwood CE (2002) Experimental design and analysis for use in tree improvement, 2nd edn. CSIRO, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  37. Wylie FR, Speight MR (2012) Insect pests in tropical forestry, 2nd edn. CABI, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhao D, Xu J, Lin M et al (2008) Evaluation for the growth loss of Eucalyptus caused by Leptocybe invasa. Guangdong For Sci Technol 24:58–60Google Scholar
  39. Zhou XD, Wingfield MJ (2011) Eucalyptus diseases and their management in China. Australas Plant Pathol 40:339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jianzhong Luo
    • 1
  • Roger Arnold
    • 1
  • Wanhong Lu
    • 1
  • Yan Lin
    • 1
  1. 1.China Eucalypt Research CentreZhanjiangChina

Personalised recommendations