| Literature DB >> 24637851 |
Dong Chu1, Dong Guo1, Yunli Tao1, Defeng Jiang1, Jie Li1, Youjun Zhang2.
Abstract
The sweetpotato whitefly Bemisia tabaci Q species is a recent invader and important pest of agricultural crops in China. This research tested the hypothesis that the Q populations that establish in agricultural fields in northern China each year are derived from multiple secondary introductions and/or local populations that overwinter in greenhouses (the pest cannot survive winters in the field in northern China). Here, we report the evidence that the Q populations in agricultural fields mainly derive from multiple secondary introductions. In addition, the common use of greenhouses during the winter in certain locations in northern China helps increase the genetic diversity and the genetic structure of the pest. The genetic structure information generated from this long-term and large-scale field analysis increases our understanding of B. tabaci Q as an invasive pest and has important implications for B. tabaci Q management.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24637851 PMCID: PMC3957146 DOI: 10.1038/srep04396
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Temporal changes in genetic diversity (He) in the populations of B. tabaci Q in Shouguang, Shandong Province during 2006–2012.
Characteristics of B. tabaci Q in seven locations in Shandong Province from 2006 to 2012. Note that only four and six of the seven locations were sampled in 2006 and 2007, respectively
| Location | Code | Year | Host | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liaocheng | 06–LC | 2006 | Eggplant | 15 | 3.60 | 2.134 | 0.413 | 0.439 | 0.424 | |
| Zibo | 06–ZB | 2006 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 4.60 | 2.733 | 0.373 | 0.529 | 0.520 | |
| Dezhou | 06–DZ | 2006 | Cotton | 15 | 3.20 | 2.061 | 0.480 | 0.407 | 0.393 | |
| Shouguang | 06–SG | 2006 | Eggplant | 14 | 2.60 | 1.931 | 0.386 | 0.443 | 0.426 | |
| Jinan | 07–JN | 2007 | Eggplant | 15 | 3.40 | 2.174 | 0.453 | 0.443 | 0.428 | |
| Liaocheng | 07–LC | 2007 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 3.40 | 2.497 | 0.490 | 0.495 | 0.487 | |
| Zibo | 07–ZB | 2007 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 3.00 | 2.052 | 0.473 | 0.433 | 0.426 | |
| Linyi | 07–LY | 2006 | Eggplant, cucumber | 30 | 3.40 | 1.866 | 0.287 | 0.290 | 0.285 | 0.287 |
| Dezhou | 07–DZ | 2007 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 3.20 | 2.026 | 0.383 | 0.408 | 0.402 | |
| Shouguang | 07–SG | 2007 | Cotton | 15 | 4.20 | 2.319 | 0.388 | 0.476 | 0.459 | |
| Jinan | 08–JN | 2008 | Cotton, Japanese hop | 30 | 3.00 | 1.964 | 0.473 | 0.385 | 0.378 | |
| Zaozhuang | 08–ZZ | 2008 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 3.80 | 2.256 | 0.491 | 0.447 | 0.439 | |
| Liaocheng | 08–LC | 2008 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 3.80 | 2.345 | 0.472 | 0.491 | 0.483 | |
| Zibo | 08–ZB | 2008 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 4.80 | 2.453 | 0.527 | 0.501 | 0.493 | |
| Linyi | 08–LY | 2007 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 2.60 | 1.769 | 0.440 | 0.351 | 0.345 | |
| Dezhou | 08–DZ | 2008 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 3.20 | 2.007 | 0.493 | 0.396 | 0.389 | |
| Shouguang | 08–SG | 2008 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 3.6 | 2.001 | 0.440 | 0.435 | 0.427 | |
| Jinan | 09–JN | 2009 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 4.00 | 2.136 | 0.447 | 0.441 | 0.433 | |
| Zaozhuang | 09–ZZ | 2009 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 4.40 | 2.221 | 0.379 | 0.476 | 0.468 | |
| Liaocheng | 09–LC | 2009 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 3.80 | 2.434 | 0.447 | 0.486 | 0.478 | |
| Zibo | 09–ZB | 2009 | Eggplant, tomato | 30 | 3.40 | 2.179 | 0.552 | 0.438 | 0.431 | |
| Linyi | 09–LY | 2009 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 3.80 | 2.069 | 0.433 | 0.443 | 0.436 | |
| Dezhou | 09–DZ | 2009 | Eggplant, Japanese hop | 30 | 3.80 | 1.947 | 0.447 | 0.376 | 0.370 | |
| Shouguang | 09–SG | 2009 | Eggplant, tomato | 30 | 4.80 | 2.224 | 0.473 | 0.470 | 0.463 | |
| Jinan | 10–JN | 2010 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 4.80 | 2.283 | 0.401 | 0.525 | 0.516 | |
| Zaozhuang | 10–ZZ | 2010 | Eggplant | 15 | 3.80 | 2.507 | 0.421 | 0.567 | 0.548 | |
| Liaocheng | 10–LC | 2010 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 5.40 | 2.561 | 0.398 | 0.568 | 0.558 | |
| Zibo | 10–ZB | 2010 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 4.80 | 2.059 | 0.351 | 0.425 | 0.418 | |
| Linyi | 10–LY | 2010 | Eggplant, cotton | 29 | 3.80 | 2.536 | 0.402 | 0.587 | 0.576 | |
| Dezhou | 10–DZ | 2010 | Eggplant, Japanese hop | 30 | 3.60 | 2.267 | 0.420 | 0.552 | 0.543 | |
| Shouguang | 10–SG | 2010 | Eggplant, tomato | 30 | 4.40 | 2.362 | 0.482 | 0.566 | 0.557 | |
| Jinan | 11–JN | 2011 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 5.40 | 2.759 | 0.347 | 0.577 | 0.568 | |
| Zaozhuang | 11–ZZ | 2011 | Eggplant, cotton | 29 | 4.40 | 2.646 | 0.371 | 0.537 | 0.527 | |
| Liaocheng | 11–LC | 2011 | Eggplant, cotton | 29 | 5.40 | 2.605 | 0.489 | 0.579 | 0.569 | |
| Zibo | 11–ZB | 2011 | Cotton, Japanese hop | 30 | 5.00 | 2.572 | 0.407 | 0.590 | 0.580 | |
| Linyi | 11–LY | 2011 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 5.40 | 2.584 | 0.418 | 0.504 | 0.496 | |
| Dezhou | 11–DZ | 2011 | Eggplant, cotton | 29 | 4.40 | 2.461 | 0.463 | 0.510 | 0.501 | |
| Shouguang | 11–SG | 2011 | Eggplant, tomato | 30 | 5.20 | 2.214 | 0.414 | 0.507 | 0.498 | |
| Jinan | 12–JN | 2012 | Eggplant, cotton | 28 | 4.60 | 2.264 | 0.325 | 0.444 | 0.436 | |
| Zaozhuang | 12–ZZ | 2012 | Eggplant, cotton | 28 | 4.20 | 2.489 | 0.400 | 0.546 | 0.536 | |
| Liaocheng | 12–LC | 2012 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 4.40 | 2.402 | 0.340 | 0.503 | 0.495 | |
| Zibo | 12–ZB | 2012 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 4.00 | 2.072 | 0.433 | 0.429 | 0.422 | |
| Linyi | 12–LY | 2012 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 4.00 | 2.133 | 0.353 | 0.437 | 0.430 | |
| Dezhou | 12–DZ | 2012 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 4.60 | 2.059 | 0.333 | 0.464 | 0.457 | |
| Shouguang | 12–SG | 2012 | Eggplant, cotton | 30 | 5.80 | 2.735 | 0.444 | 0.599 | 0.589 | |
| Mean ± SD | 27.8 ± 5.2 | 4.11 ± 0.79 | 2.275 ± 0.253 | 0.423 ± 0.057 | 0.478 ± 0.070 | 0.469 ± 0.069 |
For each sample, the following are indicated: sampling location, population code, date of collection, host plant, sample size (N), average number of alleles per locus (Na), the effective number of alleles (Ne), the observed heterozygosity (Ho), the expected heterozygosity (He), Nei's expected heterozygosity (Nei), and the estimator of the fixation index (Fis). Significant values for heterozygote deficiency are in bold.
Hierarchical AMOVA table and corresponding values for FCT (difference among groups), FSC (differences among collections within groups), and FST (differences among all collections)
| Hierarchical structure | FCT | FSC | FST |
|---|---|---|---|
| Location > Time | −0.00398 | 0.17006 | 0.16676 |
| Time > Location | 0.08570 | 0.09948 | 0.17666 |
*P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.001.
Figure 2B. tabaci Q sampling locations in Shandong Province during 2006–2012.
The color-coded assignment of populations to ten clusters identified by BAPS is shown in Figure S2 (B). In the graph, each color represents one cluster. The sampling locations are grouped by color to indicate which groups are likely to represent distinct populations. The map was generated using GeoMapApp (version 2) (http://www.geomapapp.org/).