Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1237–1253 | Cite as

A molecular phylogenetic analysis of Speyeria and its implications for the management of the threatened Speyeria zerene hippolyta

  • Anne McHugh
  • Paulette Bierzychudek
  • Christina Greever
  • Tessa Marzulla
  • Richard Van Buskirk
  • Greta Binford
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

The genetic structure of lineages can provide important information for delineating “evolutionarily significant units” (ESUs) for conservation, and for planning actions to protect and restore taxa threatened with extinction. Speyeria zerene hippolyta, the Oregon silverspot butterfly, is a U.S.A. federally threatened subspecies that is the focus of considerable conservation effort, but whose evolutionary relationships with other Speyeria taxa are not well-understood. We conducted a genetic analysis of nine Speyeria species and 25 subspecies from western U.S.A., using both mitochondrial and nuclear markers. Our goal was to determine whether such data supported (a) S. z. hippolyta’s designation as an ESU, and (b) the current morphologically-based taxonomy of Speyeria spp. Our data for S. z. hippolyta were equivocal; while nuclear markers resolved all these individuals into a single clade, mtDNA data suggested the existence of two clades. Aside from S. cybele, which was consistently supported as monophyletic, our data provided little support for most of the species currently recognized for western U.S. Speyeria, including S. zerene, and even less for the many subspecies designations. These genetic findings stand in contrast to the morphological differences recognized by experts, and suggest a relatively recent origin for many of these taxa. Two of 66 individuals screened for Wolbachia infection tested positive for this symbiont. Our results provide no persuasive evidence that S. z. hippolyta should lose its status as an ESU, but they have important implications for ongoing management actions such as population augmentation.

Keywords

ESU Evolutionarily significant unit Lepidoptera Oregon silverspot butterfly Species delineation Wolbachia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We benefited from Paul Hammond’s and David McCorkle’s many years of studying Speyeria in the field and laboratory, and the generosity with which they have shared their time, samples, knowledge, and insights. Other individuals and institutions providing materials or other assistance include Andrew Warren and the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity; Chris Marshall, Dana Ross and the Oregon State University Arthropod Collection; Niklas Wahlberg; Gary Albright and the Tillamook County Pioneer Museum; Mike Patterson; Anne Warner of United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Debbie Pickering of The Nature Conservancy; and Mary Jo Anderson and David Shepherdson at the Oregon Zoo. We are grateful for the field assistance of Charlie Blackmar, Megan Siefert, Ryan Essman, Amanda Delzer, Steven Levitte, Becca Salesky, Terry Stratton, Marrissa Hirt, and Beka Feathers, and for the advice and assistance of Pamela Zobel-Thropp, Elise Maxwell and Wendy McLennan. Work at Lewis & Clark College was generously supported by Oregon Zoo’s Future for Wildlife Program, James Dunford, and Lewis & Clark College. Data collection and initial analysis by RVB was supported by the Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis.

References

  1. Beltrán M, Jiggins CD, Bull V, Linares M, Mallet J, McMillan WO, Bermingham E (2002) Phylogenetic discordance at the species boundary: comparative gene genealogies among rapidly radiating Heliconius butterflies. Mol Biol Evol 19(12):2176–2190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brittnacher JG, Sims SR, Ayala FJ (1978) Genetic differentiation between species of the genus Speyeria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Evol 32:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brower AVZ (1994) Rapid morphological radiation and convergence among races of the butterfly Heliconius erato inferred from patterns of mitochondrial DNA evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci 91:6491–6495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brower AVZ, DeSalle R (1998) Patterns of mitochondrial versus nuclear DNA sequence divergence among nymphalid butterflies: the utility of wingless as a source of characters for phylogenetic inference. Insect Mol Biol 7:73–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan KMA, Levin SA (2005) Leaky prezygotic isolation and porous genomes: rapid introgression of maternally inherited DNA. Evol 59:720–729Google Scholar
  6. Crandall KA, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Mace GM, Wayne RK (2000) Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 15(7):290–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crone EE, Pickering D, Schultz CB (2007) Can captive rearing promote recovery of endangered butterflies? An assessment in the face of uncertainty. Biol Conserv 139:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dayrat B (2005) Towards integrative taxonomy. Biol J Linnaean Soc 85:407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeSalle R, Amato G (2004) The expansion of conservation genetics. Nat Rev Genet 5:702–712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. dosPassos CF, Grey LP (1947) Systematic catalogue of Speyeria (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) with designation of types and fixations of type localities. Am Mus Novit 1370:1–30Google Scholar
  11. Dunford JC (2007) The genus Speyeria and the Speyeria atlantis/Speyeria hesperis complex: species and subspecies accounts, systematics, and biogeography (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Dissertation, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunford JC (2009) Taxonomic overview of the greater fritillary genus Speyeria Scudder and the atlantis-hesperis species complexes, with species accounts, type images, and relevant literature. Insecta Mundi 0090:1–74Google Scholar
  13. Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res 32(5):1792–1797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forister ML, Nice CC, Fordyce JA, Gompert Z, Shapiro AM (2008) Considering evolutionary processes in the use of single-locus genetic data for conservation, with examples from the Lepidoptera. J Insect Conserv 12:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galtier N, Nabholz B, Glemin S, Hurst GDD (2009) Mitochondrial DNA as a marker of molecular diversity: a reappraisal. Mol Ecol 18:4541–4550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gompert Z, Nice CC, Fordyce JA, Forister ML, Shapiro AM (2006) Identifying units for conservation using molecular systematics: the cautionary tale of the Karner blue butterfly. Mol Ecol 15:1759–1768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gompert Z, Forister ML, Fordyce JA, Nice CC (2008) Widespread mito-nuclear discordance with evidence for introgressive hybridization and selective sweeps in Lycaeides. Mol Ecol 17(24):5231–5244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammond PC (1974) An ecological survey of the Nymphalid butterfly genus Speyeria. Dissertation, University of NebraskaGoogle Scholar
  19. Hammond PC (1978) Geographic variation and speciation in the Nymphalid butterfly genus Speyeria. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Google Scholar
  20. Hammond PC (1981) The colonization of violets and Speyeria butterflies on the ash-pumice fields deposited by Cascadian volcanoes. J Res Lepidoptera 20(3):179–191Google Scholar
  21. Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, deWard JR (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hovanitz W (1943) Geographic variation and racial structure of Argynnis callippe in California. Amer Nat 77:400–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F (2001) MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hurst GDD, Jiggins FM (2005) Problems with mitochondrial DNA as a marker in population, phylogeographic, and phylogenetic studies: the effects of inherited symbionts. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1525–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maddison WP, Maddison DR (2011) Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.75 http://mesquiteproject.org. Accessed April 13, 2011
  26. Magnacca KN, Brown MJF (2010) Mitochondrial heteroplasmy and DNA barcoding in Hawaiian Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) bees (Hymenoptera: Colletidae). BMC Evol Biol. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-174 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. McCorkle DV, Hammond PC (1988) Biology of Speyeria zerene hippolyta (Nymphalidae) in a marine-modified environment. J Lepidopterist’s Soc 42:184–195Google Scholar
  28. Moritz C (1994) Defining ‘evolutionarily significant units’ for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 9:373–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nice CC, Gompert Z, Forister ML, Fordyce JA (2009) An unseen foe in arthropod conservation efforts: the case of Wolbachia infections in the Karner blue butterfly. Biol Conserv 142:3137–3146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Padial JM, De la Riva I (2010) A response to recent proposals for integrative taxonomy. Biol J Linnaean Soc 101:747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pelham JP (2008) A catalogue of the Butterflies of the United States and Canada with a complete bibliography of the descriptive and systematic literature. J Res Lepidoptera 40:1–65Google Scholar
  32. Pyle RM (2002) The butterflies of Cascadia. Seattle Audubon Society, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  33. Rambaut A, Drummond AJ (2007) Tracer v 1.4, available from http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/Tracer
  34. Regier JC, Grant MC, Mitter C, Cook CP, Peigler RS, Rougerie R (2008) Phylogenetic relationships of wild silkmoths (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) inferred from four protein-coding nuclear genes. Syst Entomol 33:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roe AD, Sperling FAH (2007) Population structure and species boundary delimitation of cryptic Dioryctria moths: an integrative approach. Mol Ecol 16:3617–3633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlick-Steiner BC, Steiner FM, Seifert B, Stauffer C, Christian E, Crozier RH (2010) Integrative taxonomy: a multisource approach to exploring biodiversity. Ann Rev Entomol 55:421–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sperling FAH (2003) Butterfly molecular systematics: from species definitions to higher-level phylogenies. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR (eds) Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 431–458Google Scholar
  39. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M, Kumar S (2011) MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol 28:2731–2739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Toews DPL, Brelsford A (2012) The biogeography of mitochondrial and nuclear discordance in animals. Mol Ecology 21(16):3907–3930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2001) Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) revised recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Buskirk RW Jr (2000) Phylogeography, monitoring and conservation of Speyeria zerene hippolyta, the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly, Dissertation. University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  43. Wahlberg N, Wheat CW (2008) Genomic outposts serve the phylogenomic pioneers: designing novel nuclear markers for genomic DNA extractions of Lepidoptera. Systematic Biol 57(2):231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wahlberg N, Oliveira R, Scott JA (2003a) Phylogenetic relationships of Phyciodes butterfly species (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): complex mtDNA variation and species delimitations. Syst Entomol 28:257–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wahlberg N, Weingartner E, Nylin S (2003b) Towards a better understanding of the higher systematics of Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Mol Phylogenetics Evol 28:473–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wahlberg N, Weingartner E, Warren AD, Nylin S (2009) Timing major conflict between mitochondrial and nuclear genes in species relationships of Polygonia butterflies (Nymphalidae: Nymphalini). BMC Evol Biol 9:92Google Scholar
  47. Waples RS (1991) Pacific salmon, Onchorhynchus spp., and the definition of “species” under the Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Rev 53(3):11–22Google Scholar
  48. Watts PC, Thompson DJ, Allen KA, Kemp SJ (2007) How useful is DNA extracted from the legs of archived insects for microsatellite-based population genetic analyses? J. Insect Conserv 2:195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Werren JH, Windsor DM (2000) Wolbachia infection frequencies in insects: evidence of a global equilibrium? Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1277–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Werren JH, Baldo L, Clark ME (2008) Wolbachia: master manipulators of invertebrate biology. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:741–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. White HE, Durston VJ, Sellar A, Fratter C, Harvey JF, Cross NCP (2005) Accurate detection and quantitation of heteroplasmic mitochondrial point mutations by pyrosequencing. Genetic Testing 9(3):190–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams BL (2002) Conservation genetics, extinction, and taxonomic status: a case history of the regal fritillary. Conserv Biol 16(1):148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xerces Society (2012) Red list of butterflies and moths. http://www.xerces.org/red-list-of-butterflies-and-moths/. Accessed 9 Jan 2012
  54. Zakharov EV, Lobo NF, Nowak C, Hellmann JJ (2009) Introgression as a likely cause of mtDNA paraphyly in two allopatric skippers (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Heredity 102:590–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne McHugh
    • 1
    • 3
  • Paulette Bierzychudek
    • 1
  • Christina Greever
    • 1
    • 4
  • Tessa Marzulla
    • 1
    • 5
  • Richard Van Buskirk
    • 2
  • Greta Binford
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyLewis & Clark CollegePortlandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental StudiesPacific UniversityForest GroveUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  4. 4.University of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  5. 5.Oregon Health and Sciences UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations