Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 11, pp 3037–3045 | Cite as

Restructuring of a mutualism following introduction of Australian fig trees and pollinating wasps to Europe and the USA

  • E. J. MorganEmail author
  • T. L. Sutton
  • C. T. Darwell
  • J. M. Cook
Invasion Note

Abstract

Figs and fig-pollinating wasps are obligate mutualists that require each other to complete sexual reproduction. However, landscapers can establish populations of fig trees outside their native ranges by propagation through exported seeds, seedlings or cuttings. Once mature, these trees could be colonized by pollinating wasps and/or various non-pollinating wasps that also develop in figs. In recent decades, the Australian endemic Ficus rubiginosa has been planted widely in the Mediterranean region and in parts of the USA. Observation of ripe fruit production suggested that a pollination mutualism has been re-established by pollinating wasps colonizing trees in the plant’s introduced range. We therefore used sampling of pollinators from mainland Spain, Tenerife and California (USA) and molecular studies to characterize the restructured mutualism and compare it with the native range. In the native range, the plant is pollinated by five wasp species that form the Pleistodontes imperialis complex. However, all wasps in the introduced ranges belonged to just one of these species (P. imperialis sp. 1). Moreover, their mtDNA diversity was close to zero and the sequences clearly link them with the native southern population of this species. None of the > 20 non-pollinating wasp species from the native range were found in the introduced ranges. In summary, the restructured mutualism has been dramatically simplified, lacking all non-pollinating wasps and all but one pollinator species from the native range. Moreover, the one pollinator species to establish successfully shows a drastic reduction in genetic diversity relative to its source population.

Keywords

Cytb DNA barcoding Ficus rubiginosa ITS2 Pleistodontes imperialis Symbiotic interactions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Joshua Kohn for providing wasp samples for analysis, and to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript. EJM was supported by a Natural Environment Research Council (UK) Postgraduate Scholarship. TLS was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1775_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)

References

  1. Anonymous (1924) Pleistodontes imperialis Saund. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc 5:200Google Scholar
  2. Bronstein JL (1991) The nonpollinating wasp fauna of Ficus pertusa: exploitation of a mutualism? Oikos 61:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook JM, Rasplus J-Y (2003) Mutualists with attitude: coevolving figs wasps and figs. Trends Ecol Evol 18:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook JM, Segar ST (2010) Speciation in fig wasps. Ecol Entomol 35:54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D (2012) jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and high-performance computing. Nat Methods 9:772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Darwell CT, Cook JM (2017) Cryptic diversity in a fig wasp community—morphologically differentiated species are sympatric but cryptic species are parapatric. Mol Ecol 26:937–950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Darwell CT, al-Beidh S, Cook JM (2014) Molecular species delimitation of a symbiotic fig-pollinating wasp species complex reveals extreme deviation from reciprocal partner specificity. BMC Evol Biol 14:189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunn DW, Segar ST, Ridley J, Chan R, Crozier RH, Yu DW, Cook JM, Agrawal AA (2008) A role for parasites in stabilising the fig-pollinator mutualism. PLoS Biol 6:e59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Early JW (2000) Fig wasps (Hymenoptera: Agaonidae and Torymidae) in New Zealand. N Z Entomol 23:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2010) Introduction to conservation genetics. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fu YX (1997) Statistical tests of neutrality of mutations against population growth, hitchhiking and background selection. Genetics 147:915–925PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardner RO, Early JW (1996) The naturalisation of banyan figs (Ficus spp., Moraceae) and their pollinating wasps (Hymenoptera: Agaonidae) in New Zealand. N Z J Bot 34:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guindon S, Gascuel O (2003) A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol 52:696–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Haine ER, Martin J, Cook JM (2006) Deep mtDNA divergences indicate cryptic species in a fig-pollinating wasp. BMC Evol Biol 6:83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser 41:95–98Google Scholar
  16. Jermiin LS, Crozier RH (1994) The cytochrome-b region in the mitochondrial DNA of the ant Tetraponera rufoniger—sequence divergence in the hymenoptera may be associated with nucleotide content. J Mol Evol 38:282–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kerdelhué C, Le Clainche I, Rasplus JY (1999) Molecular phylogeny of the Ceratosolen species pollinating Ficus of the subgenus Sycomorus sensu stricto: biogeographical history and origins of the species-specificity breakdown cases. Mol Phylogenet Evol 11:401–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kerdelhué C, Rasplus J-Y (1996) Nonpollinating Afro-tropical fig wasps affect the fig-pollinator mutualism in Ficus within the subgenus Sycomorus. Oikos 75:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol 16:111–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Leigh EG Jr (2010) The evolution of mutualism. J Evol Biol 12:2507–2528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Librado P, Rozas J (2009) DnaSP Version 5: a software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics 25:14511452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lopez-Vaamonde C, Dixon DJ, Cook JM, Rasplus JY (2002) Revision of the Australian species of Pleistodontes (Hymenoptera: Agaonidae) fig-pollinating wasps and their host-plant associations. Zool J Linn Soc 136:637–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lopez-Vaamonde C, Rasplus JY, Weiblen GD, Cook JM (2001) Molecular phylogenies of fig wasps: partial cocladogenesis of pollinators and parasites. Mol Phylogenet Evol 21:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McKey D (1989) Population biology of figs: application for conservation. Experientia 45:661–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pemberton CE (1934) Fig-wasps established on Kauai. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc 8:379Google Scholar
  26. Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP (2012) MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol 61:539–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Segar ST, Pereira RAS, Compton SG, Cook JM, Mooers A (2013) Convergent structure of multitrophic communities over three continents. Ecol Lett 16:1436–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shanahan M, So S, Compton SG, Corlett R (2001) Fig-eating by vertebrate frugivores: a global review. Biol Rev 76:529–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Starr F, Starr K, Loope L (2003) Ficus microcarpa (Chinese banyan). United States Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division, Haleakala Field Station, Maui, Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Sutton TL, DeGabriel JL, Riegler M, Cook JM (2017) Local coexistence and genetic isolation of three pollinator species on the same fig tree species. Heredity 118:486–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sutton TL, Riegler M, Cook JM (2016) One step ahead: a parasitoid disperses farther and forms a wider geographic population than its fig wasp host. Mol Ecol 25:882–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tajima F (1989) Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics 123:585–595PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Torchin ME, Lafferty KD, Dobson AP, McKenzie VJ, Kuris AM (2003) Introduced species and their missing parasites. Nature 421:628–630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang R, Aylwin R, Barwell L et al (2015) The fig wasp followers and colonists of a widely introduced fig tree, Ficus microcarpa. Insect Conserv Divers 8:322–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. West SA, Herre EA (1994) The ecology of the New World fig-parasitizing wasps Idarnes and implications for the evolution of the fig-pollinator mutualism. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 258:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. West SA, Cook JM, Werren JH, Godfray HCJ (1998) Wolbachia in two insect host-parasitoid communities. Mol Ecol 7:1457–1465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal genes for phylogenies. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ (eds) PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. Academic Press, London, pp 315–322Google Scholar
  38. Wiebes J (1979) Co-evolution of figs and their insect pollinators. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 10:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams FX (1939) Note on Eupristina verticillata Waterston, first recovery on Oahu. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc 10:194Google Scholar
  40. Zharkikh A (1994) Estimation of evolutionary distance between nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol 39:315–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological Sciences, Harborne BuildingUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  2. 2.Hawkesbury Institute for the EnvironmentWestern Sydney UniversityPenrithAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Botany, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations