| Literature DB >> 27271592 |
Yongqiang Liu1, Xiaowei Fu2, Limi Mao3, Zhenlong Xing4, Kongming Wu5.
Abstract
In this study, we determined the host relationship of Agrotis ipsilon moths by identifying pollen species adhering them during their long-distance migration. Pollen carried by A. ipsilon moths was collected from 2012 to 2014 on a small island in the center of the Bohai Strait, which is a seasonal migration pathway of this pest species. Genomic DNA of single pollen grains was amplified by using whole genome amplification technology, and a portion of the chloroplast rbcL sequence was then amplified from this material. Pollen species were identified by a combination of DNA barcoding and pollen morphology. We found 28 species of pollen from 18 families on the tested moths, mainly from Angiosperm, Dicotyledoneae. From this, we were able to determine that these moths visit woody plants more than herbaceous plants that they carry more pollen in the early and late stages of the migration season, and that the amounts of pollen transportation were related to moth sex, moth body part, and plant species. In general, 31% of female and 26% of male moths were found to be carrying pollen. Amounts of pollen on the proboscis was higher for female than male moths, while the reverse was true for pollen loads on the antennae. This work provides a new approach to study the interactions between noctuid moth and their host plants. Identification of plant hosts for adult moths furthers understanding of the coevolution processes between moths and their host plants.Entities:
Keywords: Agrotis ipsilon; molecular identification; pollen; “insect-host plant” coevolution
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27271592 PMCID: PMC4926385 DOI: 10.3390/ijms17060851
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Molecular and morphological identification of plant species by identifying pollen.
| Number | Identified Plants | Pollen Morphology Identification | Distributed in China | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sister to | |||
| 2 | Sister to | |||
| 3 | Oleaceae | |||
| 4 | Sister to | |||
| 5 | Sister to | |||
| 6 | Sister to | Eucommiaceae | ||
| 7 | Sister to | |||
| 8 | Sister to | Oleaceae | ||
| 9 | Sister to | |||
| 10 | Sister to | |||
| 11 | Sister to | |||
| 12 | Sister to | |||
| 13 | Sister to | |||
| 14 | Sister to | |||
| 15 | Sister to | |||
| 16 | Sister to | |||
| 17 | Sister to | Cruciferae | ||
| 18 | Sister to | |||
| 19 | Sister to | Compositae | ||
| 20 | Sister to | |||
| 21 | Sister to | |||
| 22 | Sister to | |||
| 23 | Rosaceae | Unidentifiable | Rosaceae | Rosaceae |
| 24 | Rosaceae | Unidentifiable | Rosaceae | Rosaceae |
| 25 | Violaceae | Unidentifiable | Violaceae (close to | Violaceae |
| 26 | Compositae | Unidentifiable | Compositae (close to Coreopsis, | Compositae |
| 27 | Compositae | Unidentifiable | Compositae (also similar to | Compositae |
| 28 | Unidentifiable |
Figure 1Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) microphotographs of the examined pollen species. 1. Castanea mollissima; 2. Prunus yedoensis/Prunus subhirtella/Prunus serrulata; 3. Ligustrum lucidum/Ligustrum sempervirens; 4. Citrus sinensis; 5. Melia azedarach; 6. Flueggea virosa; 7. Hoboellia parviflora/Hoboellia grandiflora; 8. Olea europaea; 9. Amorpha fruticosa; 10. Alniphyllum fortunei; 11. Robinia pseudoacacia; 12. Llex cornuta/Ilex corallina; 13. Pterocarya rhoifolia; 14. Castanopsis echinocarpa; 15. Taraxacum officinale/Taraxacum platypecidium; 16. Pinus tabuliformis/Pinus thunbergii/Pinus nigra/Pinus densiflora/Pinus kesiya/Pinus sylvestris/Pinus tropicalis; 17. Brassica rapa/Brassica napus/Brassica oleracea/Brassica juncea; 18. Elaeagnus umbellata; 19. Helianthus annuus; 20. Adenophora trachelioides/Adenophora remotiflora; 21. Smilax L.; 22. Chenopodium album; 23. Rosaceae; 24. Rosaceae; 25. Violaceae (close to Viola); 26. Compositae (close to Coreopsis, Sigebeckia); 27. Compositae (also similar to Cosmos, Kalimeris, Aster); 28. Aster L. (also similar to Chrysanthemum, Matricaria).
Chi-squared test and a Student’s t-test for tested frequencies of pollen deposition on A. ipsilon.
| Female and Male Pollen Carrier Rate of | Proboscis and Antennae Pollen Carrier Rate of | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proboscis | 2012 | 4.30 | Female | 2012 | 52.46 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 0.038 | <0.001 | ||||||
| 2013 | 8.56 | 2013 | 34.09 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 0.003 | <0.001 | ||||||
| 2014 | 10.57 | 2014 | 97.75 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| 2012–2014 | 1.57 | 2012–2014 | 9.25 | ||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||
| 0.19 | 0.001 | ||||||
| Antennae | 2012 | 13.11 | Male | 2012 | 8.52 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||
| <0.001 | 0.004 | ||||||
| 2013 | 4.39 | 2013 | 4.84 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 0.036 | 0.028 | ||||||
| 2014 | 8.89 | 2014 | 11.34 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 0.003 | 0.001 | ||||||
| 2012–2014 | −6.73 | 2012–2014 | 2.62 | ||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||
| 0.003 | 0.059 | ||||||
| Proboscis and antennae | 2012 | 0.049 | Female and male | 2012 | 48.560 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 0.82 | <0.001 | ||||||
| 2013 | 2.10 | 2013 | 31.54 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 0.15 | <0.001 | ||||||
| 2014 | 3.74 | 2014 | 3.74 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||
| 0.053 | <0.001 | ||||||
| 2012–2014 | 0.59 | 2012–2014 | 5.09 | ||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||
| 0.59 | 0.007 | ||||||
Figure 2(A) Frequencies of pollen deposition on female and male proboscises, antennae and total (proboscis and antennae) of A. ipsilon moths; (B) Frequencies of pollen deposition on proboscis and antennae of female, male and total (female and male) of A. ipsilon moths. Double asterisks (**) indicates there was significant difference at the 1% level as determined by a t-test, and ns indicates there was no significant difference.
Figure 3Frequencies of pollen deposition on migratory A. ipsilon near the Bohai Sea area in different migration stages during 2012–2014. Bars sharing the same letter mean there were no significant differences at the 5% level by Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) tests.
Figure 4The characteristic of pollen source plants of migratory A. ipsilon during 2012–2014. Single asterisk (*) or double asterisks (**) indicates there was significant difference at the 5% or 1% level as determined by chi-squared test.