| Literature DB >> 25977894 |
Luis M Hernandez1, Yoan C Guzman1, Adriana Martínez-Arias2, Maria R Manzano1, John J Selvaraj2.
Abstract
The Dipteran Prodiplosis longifila is a severe pest, mainly of Solanaceae, in South America and some years ago it damaged Tahiti lime crops in the United States. It is a potential invasive pest. Despite its presence in Colombia, nothing is known regarding the taxonomic identification of P. longifila or the characteristics of the damage it produces. Moreover, the current and potential distributions of this pest are unknown. To determine these factors, P. longifila was sampled in several Solanaceae- and Citrus (x) latifolia (Tahiti lime)-producing areas in Colombia. The larvae consumed tender foliage, flowers and fruits in tomato, fruits in sweet pepper, and buds in Tahiti lime. P. longifila was not found in asparagus or in potatoes. Its presence in Tahiti lime was previously unknown in Colombia. Adults recovered in the laboratory were taxonomically identified using male morphological characteristics such as the shapes of the genitalia, antenna and wing. P. longifila was found in the Andean region of Colombia. The ecological niche model for populations found in tomato suggests that P. longifila is limited in its distribution by altitude and variables associated with temperature and precipitation. The highest probability of occurrence is in areas where tomato, sweet pepper and the new host, Tahiti lime, are grown. Therefore, it is necessary to implement preventive measures, such as planting tomato materials free of P. longifila larvae, in areas where the pest is not yet present but where there is the potential for its development.Entities:
Keywords: Bud midge; Capsicum; Citrus; Ecological niche; Plant damage; Solanum
Year: 2015 PMID: 25977894 PMCID: PMC4424221 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-0987-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Composition of Cecidomyiidae species collected in 11 Colombian departments in crops of (CL), (SL), (CF), (CA), (ST) and (AO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CL | Flower buds | Antioquia | 4 |
|
|
| ||||
| Caldas | 1 |
| ||
| Huila | 3 |
| ||
|
| ||||
| Santander | 1 |
| ||
| Valle del Cauca | 3 |
| ||
|
| ||||
| SL | Leaves, flowers and fruits | Antioquia | 18 |
|
| Boyacá | 12 |
| ||
| Caldas | 8 |
| ||
| Cauca | 4 |
| ||
| Cundinamarca | 6 |
| ||
| Huila | 12 |
| ||
| Quindío | 4 |
| ||
| Risaralda | 4 |
| ||
| Santander | 13 |
| ||
| Valle del Cauca | 26 |
| ||
| CF | Fruits | Valle del Cauca | 10 | Cecidomyiidae sp1 |
| CA | Fruits | Antioquia | 2 | - |
| Huila | 6 |
| ||
| Cecidomyiidae sp1 | ||||
| Santander | 1 |
| ||
| Cecidomyiidae sp1 | ||||
| Valle del Cauca | 7 |
| ||
| Cecidomyiidae sp1 | ||||
| ST | - | Antioquia | 1 | - |
| - | Boyacá | 15 | - | |
| - | Nariño | 5 | - | |
| AO | - | Cauca | 1 | - |
Figure 1Map of the spatial distribution of Prodiplosis longifila in Colombia.
Figure 2Prodiplosis longifila male (40X) a. antenna and b. genitalia.
Figure 3Prodiplosis longifila larvae damage in a. tomato leaf bud, b. tomato flower, c. tomato fruit, d. sweet pepper fruit, and e. Tahiti lime floral bud.
Matrix of correlations between climatic variables*, values of variance inflation (VIF) and Student’s test
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| - | 13245.23 | 0.030 | ||||||||||||||||
|
| 0.05 | - | 35.27 | 0.261 | |||||||||||||||
|
| 0.49 | −0.46 | - | 5.60 | 0.024 | ||||||||||||||
|
| 0.99 | 0.09 | 0.51 | - | 2045.72 | 0.244 | |||||||||||||
|
| 0.99 | −0.04 | 0.51 | 0.98 | - | 1805.22 | 0.307 | ||||||||||||
|
| 0.99 | 0.06 | 0.48 | 0.99 | 0.99 | - | 733.62 | 0.268 | |||||||||||
|
| 0.99 | 0.02 | 0.50 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | - | 3304.18 | 0.284 | ||||||||||
|
| 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.53 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | - | 1.06 | 0.030 | |||||||||
|
| −0.17 | 0.35 | −0.12 | −0.14 | −0.23 | −0.16 | −0.19 | −0.18 | - | 2.07 | 0.008 | ||||||||
|
| 0.20 | −0.52 | 0.28 | 0.19 | 0.27 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.22 | −0.47 | - | 7.98 | 0.482 | |||||||
|
| 0.40 | −0.62 | 0.61 | 0.19 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.43 | 0.43 | −0.45 | 0.84 | - | 178.54 | 0.437 | ||||||
|
| −0.16 | −0.29 | −0.21 | −0.2 | −0.10 | −0.17 | −0.15 | −0.17 | −0.54 | 0.57 | 0.34 | - | 35.09 | 0.124 | |||||
|
| 0.49 | −0.26 | 0.60 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.51 | 0.52 | −0.06 | 0.34 | 0.63 | −0.38 | - | 2.04 | 0.039 | ||||
|
| 0.41 | −0.64 | 0.64 | 0.41 | 0.47 | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.44 | −0.42 | 0.82 | 0.99 | 0.30 | 0.62 | - | 1.52 | 0.049 | |||
|
| 0.04 | −0.51 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.05 | −0.59 | 0.77 | 0.68 | 0.87 | −0.06 | 0.65 | - | 68.87 | 0.096 | ||
|
| −0.33 | −0.45 | −0.21 | −0.38 | −0.27 | −0.33 | −0.32 | −0.33 | −0.37 | 0.47 | 0.30 | 0.71 | −0.20 | 0.26 | 0.67 | - | 14.65 | 0.057 | |
|
| 0.47 | −0.57 | 0.61 | 0.47 | 0.53 | 0.44 | 0.5 | 0.50 | −0.41 | 0.78 | 0.97 | 0.27 | 0.67 | 0.97 | 0.61 | 0.18 | - | 3.23 | 0.018 |
|
| 5.98 | 0.002 | |||||||||||||||||
|
| 4.81 | 0.415 | |||||||||||||||||
|
| 5.19 | 0.103 | |||||||||||||||||
*Bio1: Mean annual temperature, Bio2: Mean diurnal temperature range (Max. Temp. – Min. Temp.), Bio4: Temperature seasonality (standard deviation x 100), Bio5: Maximum temperature of the warmest month, Bio6: Minimum temperature of the coldest month, Bio8: Mean temperature of the wettest trimester, Bio9: Mean temperature of the driest trimester, Bio10: Mean temperature of the hottest trimester, Bio11: Mean temperature of the coldest trimester, Bio12: Total annual precipitation, Bio13: Precipitation of the wettest month, Bio14: Precipitation of the driest month, Bio15: Precipitation seasonality (Coefficient of variation), Bio16: Precipitation of the wettest trimester, Bio17: Precipitation of the driest trimester, Bio18: Precipitation of the warmest trimester, Bio19: Precipitation the coldest trimester.
**Probability by Student’s t test.
Figure 4Predictive distribution map of Prodiplosis longifila in Colombia.