+ All Categories
Home > Documents > phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004)....

phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004)....

Date post: 13-Aug-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 2 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
24
Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 DOI 10.1007/s10493-007-9092-z 1 C REVIEW PAPER Spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) mitochondrial COI phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, reproductive parasites and barcoding Vera I. D. Ros · Johannes A. J. Breeuwer Received: 11 April 2007 / Accepted: 10 July 2007 / Published online: 22 August 2007 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract The past 15 years have witnessed a number of molecular studies that aimed to resolve issues of species delineation and phylogeny of mites in the family Tetranychidae. The central part of the mitochondrial COI region has frequently been used for investigating intra- and interspeciWc variation. All these studies combined yield an extensive database of sequence information of the family Tetranychidae. We assembled this information in a sin- gle alignment and performed an overall phylogenetic analysis. The resulting phylogeny shows that important patterns have been overlooked in previous studies, whereas others disappear. It also reveals that mistakes were made in submitting the data to GenBank, which further disturbed interpretation of the data. Our total analysis clearly shows three clades that most likely correspond to the species T. urticae, T. kanzawai and T. truncatus. IntraspeciWc variation is very high, possibly due to selective sweeps caused by reproductive parasites. We found no evidence for host plant associations and phylogeographic patterns in T. urticae are absent. Finally we evaluate the application of DNA barcoding. Keywords Tetranychidae · Tetranychus urticae · COI · Barcoding · Reproductive parasites · Spider mites Introduction Species identiWcation is the basis for understanding species diversity, phylogenetic patterns, and evolutionary processes. Only correct identiWcations allow for comparisons between studies and the repetition or expansion of earlier experiments. In pest species, species identiWcation is also important in the development of (biological) pest control strategies. V. I. D. Ros (&) · J. A. J. Breeuwer Evolutionary Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, P. O. Box 94062, Amsterdam, 1090 GB, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]
Transcript
Page 1: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 DOI 10.1007/s10493-007-9092-z

REVIEW PAPER

Spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) mitochondrial COI phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, reproductive parasites and barcoding

Vera I. D. Ros · Johannes A. J. Breeuwer

Received: 11 April 2007 / Accepted: 10 July 2007 / Published online: 22 August 2007© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract The past 15 years have witnessed a number of molecular studies that aimed toresolve issues of species delineation and phylogeny of mites in the family Tetranychidae.The central part of the mitochondrial COI region has frequently been used for investigatingintra- and interspeciWc variation. All these studies combined yield an extensive database ofsequence information of the family Tetranychidae. We assembled this information in a sin-gle alignment and performed an overall phylogenetic analysis. The resulting phylogenyshows that important patterns have been overlooked in previous studies, whereas othersdisappear. It also reveals that mistakes were made in submitting the data to GenBank,which further disturbed interpretation of the data. Our total analysis clearly shows threeclades that most likely correspond to the species T. urticae, T. kanzawai and T. truncatus.IntraspeciWc variation is very high, possibly due to selective sweeps caused by reproductiveparasites. We found no evidence for host plant associations and phylogeographic patternsin T. urticae are absent. Finally we evaluate the application of DNA barcoding.

Keywords Tetranychidae · Tetranychus urticae · COI · Barcoding · Reproductive parasites · Spider mites

Introduction

Species identiWcation is the basis for understanding species diversity, phylogeneticpatterns, and evolutionary processes. Only correct identiWcations allow for comparisonsbetween studies and the repetition or expansion of earlier experiments. In pest species,species identiWcation is also important in the development of (biological) pest controlstrategies.

V. I. D. Ros (&) · J. A. J. BreeuwerEvolutionary Biology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, P. O. Box 94062, Amsterdam, 1090 GB, The Netherlandse-mail: [email protected]

1 C

Page 2: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

240 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

IdentiWcation and delineation of species within the Tetranychidae has been an issue ofdebate for the past few decades. Within the family about 1200 diVerent species aredescribed, many of which are of agronomical importance (Bolland et al. 1998). The genusTetranychus is well studied and includes two common major agricultural pest species witha worldwide distribution: Tetranychus urticae Koch, 1836 and Tetranychus kanzawaiKishida, 1927. Morphological identiWcation of tetranychid species is diYcult. The numberof potential diagnostic characters is limited (partly due to the small size of the mites) andkey traits often exhibit large phenotypic plasticity. As a result, many species cannot be dis-tinguished on the basis of external morphology. For example, in Japan 10 Tetranychus spe-cies are recognized (Ehara 1999). However, morphological identiWcation using adultfemales is possible for only two of the species. The remaining eight species can only beidentiWed by microscopic examination of the shape of the aedeagus (part of the male geni-talia). Another example that shows our inability to identify species on the basis of morphol-ogy is the well-studied two-spotted spider mite species T. urticae. This species isconsidered a species complex (Navajas et al. 1998) and as many as 44 synonymous namesare known (Bolland et al. 1998). The question whether red T. urticae mites should be con-sidered a separate species (T. cinnabarinus) has occupied taxonomists for many years(Dupont 1979; Gotoh and Tokioka 1996; Zhang and Jacobson 2000). The fact that there areonly few taxonomists specialized in morphological identiWcation of mites and that theirnumber is decreasing adds to the problem of spider mite identiWcation.

DNA sequences are currently an indispensable tool for delineating and identifyingspecies. In this context it is important to distinguish between DNA taxonomy and DNAbarcoding. DNA taxonomy concerns the circumscription and delineation of species usingevolutionary species concepts (Vogler and Monaghan 2007). DNA barcoding aims at theidentiWcation of pre-deWned species and does not address the issue of species delineationper se (Monaghan et al. 2005). In DNA barcoding a short standardized DNA sequence,usually the 5� end part of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene, isused to identify species. DNA barcoding can be used to (i) identify and assign unknownspecimens to species that have been previously described and (ii) enhance the discoveryof new species using a threshold of sequence divergence (Hebert et al. 2003; Moritz andCicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well asnuclear DNA regions and can serve as a database for DNA barcoding. DNA taxonomy isan oVshoot of phylogenetics, in which the evolutionary relationships between taxa (e.g.,species) are investigated. Throughout this paper we use the term ‘species delineation’when it concerns DNA taxonomy and ‘species identiWcation’ when it concerns DNAbarcoding.

The usefulness of the COI region for delineating tetranychid species has been investi-gated in several studies (Hinomoto et al. 2001; Hinomoto and Takafuji 2001; Lee et al.1999; Navajas et al. 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1998; Toda et al. 2000; Xie et al. 2006a).Recently, a DNA barcoding approach was used to identify tetranychid species (Hinomotoet al. 2007). Each of these studies used a diVerent or sometimes partially overlapping sub-set of tetranychid sequences. Many studies extended their dataset with one or several tetr-anychid sequences from the GenBank database, serving as a reference for phylogenyreconstruction or species identiWcation. However, sequence diversity within T. urticae issubstantial (e.g., Navajas et al. 1998) so that diVerent T. urticae sequences are availablefrom GenBank, some of which bear an incorrect species name (due to misidentiWcation).As a consequence, diVerent T. urticae reference sequences were used in above-mentionedstudies, leading to the emergence of variable taxonomic groupings and phylogenetic pat-terns. This, combined with the analyses of restricted subsets in each study, gives an

1 C

Page 3: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 241

incomplete and fragmented view of species delineations and phylogenetic relationshipswithin the family Tetranychidae.

In this study we create an extensive COI dataset of the family Tetranychidae, with awide coverage of the species T. kanzawai and T. urticae (including T. cinnabarinus, whichis currently considered synonymous to T. urticae). We have collected all currently avail-able mitochondrial COI sequences from GenBank and added data on mites collected fromEurope and North America. We critically evaluate the assembled data and perform an over-all phylogenetic analysis. This approach reveals novel patterns on species delineation andphylogenetic relationships. We discuss the use of COI for DNA barcoding purposes byconsidering the intra- and interspeciWc variation. In addition, we discuss the observed vari-ation in COI in relation to associated host plant, phylogeographic patterns and the presenceof endosymbionts (e.g., Wolbachia, Cardinium). Finally, we provide guidelines for futurephylogenetic studies on (tetranychid) mites.

Material and methods

Additional tetranychid samples

Tetranychid mites were collected in Europe (six locations), in North America (one loca-tion), and from two cultures maintained in our lab for 10 years (Table 1). Mites were notidentiWed morphologically to the species level. DNA was extracted from single individualsusing a modiWed CTAB extraction method (Doyle 1991). A single adult female was groundin 5 �l of proteinase K (20 mg/ml) and 100 �l CTAB (2% CTAB w/v in 100 mM Tris-HCl[pH8], 20 mM EDTA, and 1.42 M NaCl) buVer was added. After vortexing, samples wereincubated at 55°C for 1 h. Next, 100 �l chloroform: isoamylalcohol (24:1) was added andcontents were gently mixed for 2 min. Tubes were centrifuged for 10 min. at 15,800 g.After centrifugation, 80 �l of the supernatant was transferred to a clean tube and DNA wasprecipitated by adding 200 �l ice-cold 96% ethanol. Tubes were incubated at ¡20°C for atleast 1 h prior to centrifugation at 15,800 g for 15 min at 4°C. The supernatant wasremoved and the DNA pellet was washed with 70% ethanol. Next, the DNA was air driedfor at least 15 min, eluted in 30 �l sterile water, and stored at ¡20°C.

Part of the mitochondrial COI gene was ampliWed using various primer combinations(Table 1). Depending on the primer combination, this yielded a fragment size of 410–863basepairs (bp), excluding the primer annealing sites (Fig. 1). PCR was performed in a 25 �lreaction mix containing 2.5 �l 10X Super Taq buVer (HT BioTechnology, Cambridge,U.K.), 1.25 �l bovine serum albumin (10 mg/ml), 1.25 �l MgCl2 (25 mM), 5 �l dNTPmix (1 mM of each nucleotide), 0.2 �l of each primer (20 �M each), 0.2 �l of super Taq(5 u/ �l) (HT BioTechnology), 11.9 �l water and 2.5 �l of DNA extract. PCR cycling con-ditions were 4 min. at 94°C, followed by 35 cycles of 1 min at 94°C, 1 min at 48°C and1 min at 72°C, and a Wnal extension at 72°C for 4 min. Products (2 �l) were visualized on a1% agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide in 0.5X TBE buVer (45 mM Tris base,45 mM boric acid, and 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0).

PCR products were puriWed using a DNA extraction kit (Fermentas, St. Leon-Rot,Germany). The puriWed products were directly sequenced using the ABI PRISM BigDyeTerminator Sequence Kit (Applied Biosystems, Nieuwerkerk a/d IJssel, The Netherlands)according to the manufacturer’s instructions but diluted 16 times. Both strands of the prod-ucts were sequenced using the same primers as used in the PCR ampliWcation. Sequenceswere run on an ABI 3700 automated DNA sequencer. Obtained sequences were aligned

1 C

Page 4: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

242 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

using ClustalX v 1.8.0 (Thompson et al. 1997) and compared to the sequences obtainedfrom GenBank (see below).

Database compilation

Sequence collection

A single database was constructed comprising all available tetranychid COI sequencesfrom GenBank and the sequences obtained in this study. Sequences were collected from

Table 1 Overview of samples sequenced in this study and the primer sequences used for COI ampliWcation

a Maintained in the lab on bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) for over 10 yearsb 1 = GGAGGATTTGGAAATTGATTAGTTCC (Navajas and Boursot 2003); 2 = AAWCCTCTAAAAATRGCRAATACRGC (modiWed from Hinomoto and Takafuji (2001); 3 = TGATTTTTTGGTCACCCAGAAG (Navajas et al. 1994); 4 = TACAGCTCCTATAGATAAAAC (Navajas et al. 1994)

Strain Country Locality Host plant Collection date

Primerb

Common name ScientiWc name F R

NL1 Netherlands Castricum European Spindle

Euonymus europaeus

Sep-06 1 2

NL2 Netherlands Castricum European Honeysuckle

Lonicera periclymenum

Sep-06 1 2

F1 France Vireux Blackthorn Prunus spinosa Jul-06 1 2T1 Unknown Unknown Cucumbera Cucumis sativus a 1 2T2 Netherlands Aalsmeer (greenhouse) Rosea Rosa spec. a 1 2US1 United States Tucson (AZ) Unknown Unknown May-05 3 4P1 Portugal Caldas de Monchique Citrus Citrus spec. Feb-05 3 4S1 Spain Mont-roig del camp Orange Citrus spec. Apr-04 3 4PL1 Poland Rabkowa Plumb Prunus spec. Aug-05 3 4

Fig. 1 Overview of the COI fragments sequenced in diVerent studies and their relative position after align-ment. The position of the fragment analyzed in this study and of the standard DNA barcoding fragment (Fol-mer fragment) on the total mitochondrial COI gene (position 1474–3009) are indicated on top. Base pairnumbers correspond to the Drosophila melanogaster mitochondrial DNA sequence (GenBank accession nr.U37541). For each study, thick horizontal lines represent the fragment sequenced in all specimens and thinlines indicate the maximum sequence length. Number of sequences (between parentheses) and references arelisted at the right. For references of unpublished studies, see Appendix

1474 3009Folmer fragment (658bp)1515 2172

1598 2195 2584 2734

this study (390bp)

(1) Fournier et al.1994 (1) Navajaset al.1994 (18) Navajaset al. 1996b (3) Navajaset al.1997, 1998 (6) Lee et al. 1999 (7) Toda etal.2000(22) Hinomotoet al.2001(14) Hinomotoand Takafuji2001(12) Navajasand Boursot2003(1) Rodrigueset al. 2004(13) Xieet al. 2006a(17) Unpublished 1(9) Unpublished 2(5) Unpublished 3(27) Unpublished 4(9) This study

1 C

Page 5: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 243

GenBank on September 8th, 2006 (keywords for search were ‘cytochrome oxidase subunitI AND Tetranychidae’). This yielded a total of 165 sequences (156 from GenBank, 9 fromthis study), of which 79 (48%) were published in peer reviewed journals. An overview ofall sequences, their GenBank accession numbers, assigned species names, references, sam-ple locations, and associated host plants (if known) is given in the Appendix. Sequenceswere aligned using ClustalX. Due to the use of diVerent primer combinations in the variousstudies, the sequences diVered in length and in position on the COI region (Fig. 1). A cen-tral part of 390 bp was chosen for subsequent analysis (highlighted region in Fig. 1). Con-sidering this central part, 25 sequences were found more than once (see Appendix). Prior tophylogenetic analysis, identical sequences (except one) were removed from the dataset,resulting in 96 unique sequences. In addition, six sequences with accession numbersAF131105–AF131110 (Lee et al. 1999) were excluded from analysis because of too manymissing data in the region of overlap (272 bp of the 390 bp part are missing; Fig. 1). Thedataset was further adjusted for wrongly submitted sequences (see next paragraph) leadingto the addition of one corrected sequence, yielding a Wnal number of 91 aligned COIsequences. Of these, 71 were published in peer reviewed journals and 68 belong to thegenus Tetranychus according to the GenBank submission info. A Clustal alignment of the91 unique sequences can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

Data validation: Incongruencies in the database

When compiling the dataset, two discrepancies were encountered between sequence infor-mation submitted to GenBank and the description in the associated articles. The Wrst oneconcerns accession X80860. Its sequence was wrongly submitted to GenBank. InGenBank, accessions X80859 and X80860 are listed as T. neocaledonicus and T. gloverirespectively. According to the associated article, these sequences should diVer 10% (Nava-jas et al. 1996b). However, accessions X80859 and X80860 show identical sequences, bothconcurring with the sequence T. neocaledonicus from the article. The correct sequence ofT. gloveri was obtained from the original article and added to the dataset. The second dis-crepancy concerns accessions X99873, X99874 and X99875. According to the descriptionin GenBank, accession X99873 was obtained from the Amphitetranychus quercivorusstrain Sapporo and accession X99874 from the A. quercivorus strain Tsukuba. Comparingthis to sequences in Navajas et al. (1997), the X99873 GenBank sequence concurs withA. quercivorus strain Tsukuba in the article. GenBank sequence X99874 concurs with thesequence of A. viennensis in the article (and therefore is identical to the GenBank sequenceof X99875, previously named T. viennensis). This means that the sequences of accessionsX99873 and X99874 are diVerent from the article sequences. We included accessionsX99873 as A. quercivorus and X99875 as A. viennensis in the dataset. Accession X99874was excluded from the dataset.

Phylogenetic analysis

PAUP* version 4.0b10 (SwoVord 2002) and DAMBE version 4.1.15 (Xia and Xie 2001)were used to calculate numbers of variable sites, uncorrected pairwise divergences, nucleo-tide composition, and transition and transversion ratios. PAUP was used to perform achi-square test of base frequency homogeneity across all taxa.

Phylogenetic analyses were conducted in PAUP using Neighbour-Joining (NJ) algo-rithms (p-distance) and Maximum Likelihood (ML) algorithms (TBR heuristics, randomaddition sequence with Wve replicates, reconnection limit of 10). Both PAUP and Modeltest

1 C

Page 6: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

244 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

3.6 (Posada and Crandall 1998) were used to select the optimal evolution model for the MLanalysis. The selected model was further optimized by critically evaluating the selectedparameters (SwoVord and Sullivan 2003) using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC;Akaike 1974). Because COI is a protein coding gene, we tested if the likelihood of modelswith the lowest likelihood score could be further improved by incorporating speciWc ratesfor each codon position (Shapiro et al. 2006). Under the selected model, parameters andtree topology were optimized using the successive approximations approach (Sullivan et al.2005). For the NJ analyses robustness of nodes was assessed with 1,000 NJ-bootstrap repli-cates. For the ML analyses bootstrap support was assessed by performing a NJ bootstrap(1,000 replicates) with distances calculated according to the selected ML model (becauseof computational constraints).

Phylogenetic analyses were performed for i) the family Tetranychidae and ii) the genusTetranychus separately. The analysis of the family Tetranychidae included all species. Asthe species T. kanzawai, T. urticae and T. truncatus are over-represented, eight strains wereselected representing these three species (Fig. 4). The dataset for this analysis included 37sequences. The Wnal tree was rooted using the species Petrobia harti and Bryobia kisso-phila. These two species belong to a separate subfamily (Bryobiinae) from all other species(subfamily Tetranychinae). The analysis of the genus Tetranychus included 68 sequences.For this analysis, two Panonychus sequences and one Petrobia and one Bryobia sequencewere used as an outgroup.

Because saturation of the third codon position is frequently observed for COI (Gleesonet al. 1998; Söller et al. 2001), an analysis excluding this position was performed to see ifthis improved the resolution of the phylogeny.

Results

Data acquisition: New sequencing

Each COI sequence that we obtained in this study was identical to several sequencesalready present in the GenBank dataset. Two samples, from the USA (Arizona) and Portugal,were identical to Eutetranychus banksi. The sample from citrus in Spain was identical toPanonychus citri from Japan and the sample from Poland (from Prunus spec.) to P. ulmifrom Japan. The remaining samples (the two lab strains and a sample from France) wereidentical to an Asian T. urticae strain (sampled from Japan, Thailand, and Taiwan) (seeAppendix).

Alignment and analysis of patterns of molecular evolution

All sequences could be unambiguously aligned; no insertions or deletions were found.Translation of all sequences into amino acids revealed no stop codons. The total alignmentof the 91 tetranychid sequences was 390 bp (minimum sequence length was 304 bp;Fig. 1); 146 sites were phylogenetically informative, 31 sites were variable but uninforma-tive, and 213 sites were constant. On average across all taxa, the AT content was 75%(32%A, 43%T, 11%C, and 14%G). This high AT content is a general feature of the COIregion in arthropods, and is comparable to other studies on insect and mite taxa (Lunt et al.1996; Navajas et al. 1996b). However, the distribution of bias in base composition was notuniform with respect to the three codon positions (Fig. 2). First, second, and third codonpositions showed AT biases of 69, 64, and 94% respectively. In some haplotypes, no C or

1 C

Page 7: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 245

G base was found at the third codon position. Nevertheless, a chi-square test of base fre-quency homogeneity revealed no signiWcant diVerences across taxa for the overall data setor for the three base positions separately (Fig. 2). Note that this test ignores correlation dueto phylogeny and therefore tends to reject the null hypothesis too easily, so that failure toreject can safely be taken as evidence of homogeneity (Frati et al. 1997).

The extent of saturation was assessed by plotting the transition and transversion ratesagainst uncorrected p-distance divergences (Fig. 3). At the third codon position, transver-sions outnumber transitions and the number of transversions begins to plateau (Fig. 3),indicating saturation and making this position unsuitable for resolving more basal branch-ing patterns. However, removing the third codon position from the analysis did not result ina more resolved phylogeny (results not shown). This is probably due to a conserved aminoacid sequence (limiting the amount of variation in Wrst and second base pair positions aschanges in these positions in most cases change the amino acid sequence).

The model selected by Modeltest for the tetranychid dataset was the General TimeReversible Model with invariable sites and a gamma distribution of rate heterogeneity(GTR+I+G). However, implementing the rate class ‘a b a b e f’ signiWcantly improved thelikelihood (AIC) and was therefore used for parameter and tree topology estimation. Forthe Tetranychus dataset the General Time Reversible Model (GTR) with site-speciWc ratesfor the three coding positions was further optimized by incorporating the following rateclass: a b c d e a. This slightly simpler model signiWcantly improved the likelihood (AIC)and was used for parameter and tree topology estimation.

Phylogenetic relationships between tetranychid genera

The ML tree of the overall analysis is shown in Fig. 4. The phylogenetic relationshipamong the taxa is not well resolved. This is probably due to the strongly biased nucleotidecomposition and the saturation at the third codon position. It shows that this portion of theCOI gene is not suitable for resolving the branching order of the genera and the moredistantly related species. P. harti and B. kissophila, both belonging to the subfamily Bryo-biinae cluster together, and group outside the subfamily Tetranychinae. There is howeverno high support for monophyly of any of the genera. The NJ tree shows a similar non-resolved phylogeny (not shown) with the only diVerence that the genus Eotetranychusappears as a monophyletic group with high bootstrap support (78%). DiVerences betweengenera range from 8 to 22% and between species within genera from 1 to 13%.

Fig. 2 Base compositions for each codon position of the 390-bp aligned COI region, averaged over all tetr-anychid samples. Error bars depict minimum to maximum range. Results of the homogeneity test are givenfor each codon position

First codon positions Second codon positions Third codon positions A

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

A C G T A C G T A C G T A C G TNucleotide

Prop

ortio

n of

tota

l bas

es

All codon positions

Test of homogeneiy(df= 270)

= 23.38 p=1.0 = 11.53 p=1.0 = 251.98 p=0.78 = 52.95 p=1.022 2 2

1 C

Page 8: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

246 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

The genus Tetranychus

Just over 50% of the sequences in GenBank are unpublished. Hong, Xie and colleagueshave submitted 27 sequences (accessions DQ437542 through DQ437568, submitted March7, 2006) as T. cinnabarinus. It is unclear why all these accessions were namedT. cinnabarinus. The fact that these T. cinnabarinus accessions are scattered all over thephylogeny shows that these sequences do not concern a single species. Besides, the speciesname T. cinnabarinus is not generally accepted (Dupont 1979; Gotoh and Tokioka 1996),and is also not mentioned in the World Catalogue of the spider mite family (only as syno-nym of T. urticae) (Bolland et al. 1998). In the remainder of this paper we will not use thename T. cinnabarinus.

For the genus Tetranychus, the ML tree is shown in Fig. 5. The NJ tree shows a similartopology as the ML tree, bootstrap support values are slightly lower in the ML tree (NJ treenot shown). Several clades emerge, although the exact branching order remains unresolved(Fig. 5). The species T. kanzawai, T. urticae and presumably T. truncatus (see below) havebeen widely sampled and intraspeciWc variation is substantial. These species form a mono-phyletic group (bootstrap support 65%). The relationship between all other Tetranychusspecies remains unresolved, except that T. paciWcus and T. mcdanieli cluster together(bootstrap support 83%). Two potentially new species are found (DQ437551 andDQ437566). Sequence divergence between these two accessions is 9.2%, which is of thesame order as found between other species. Although these accessions are described inGenBank as T. cinnabarinus, this seems incorrect (see above).

Fig. 3 Saturation plots of transversion and transition rates against uncorrected p-distance at each codonposition

Uncorrected p-distance

etar noitisnarT

etar noisrevsnarT

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35Position 1

Position 2

Position 3

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Position 1

Position 2

Position 3

1 C

Page 9: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 247

Tetranychus urticae, Tetranychus kanzawai and Tetranychus truncatus

The species T. urticae and T. kanzawai have been investigated in several diVerent studiesand were sampled from all over the world (see Appendix). The analysis of COI variationreveals the existence of very divergent lineages (Fig. 5). Clade 1 contains all T. kanzawaispecimens (bootstrap value = 71%). This clade contains two subclades that were previouslydescribed by Hinomoto and Takafuji (2001). On the other hand, T. urticae specimens forma highly diverse group in which several well-supported clades are recognized. One clade

Fig. 4 Maximum likelihood tree of the tetranychid dataset based upon COI sequences. GenBank accessionnumbers and associated species names are given. If a haplotype is found more than once, the accession num-ber is followed by the haplotype number (see Appendix) and the number of times the haplotype is found be-tween parentheses. Numbers on the branches indicate the percentage bootstrap values (>50) based on NJbootstrapping with ML settings (1,000 replicates). Bar at the lower left corner depicts the branch length cor-responding to 10% maximum likelihood distance

0.1

X80870X80871

Petrobia hartiBryobia kissophila

AY320030 – 23 (3x) Eutetranychus banksi

AB041255

AB041256AB079046

AB041253 – 25 (2x)X80868

AB041254X80869

AB041252 – 24 (2x)

AB041251

Panonychus mori

Panonychus ulmi

Panonychus citri

Panonychus osmanthi

X80864

X80863

Eotetranychus tiliarium

Eotetranychus carpini

X80867 Eotetranychus coryli

X80865

X80866

Oligonychus ununguis

Oligonychus platani

X99875

X80861Amphitetranychus viennensis

X80872

X99873

Eurytetranychus buxi

Amphitetranychus quercivorus

X79901 Mononychellus progressivus

X80862 Oligonychus gossipii

T. gloveri

DQ437551 (T. cinnabarinus)

X80858

X80857

T. pacificus

T. mcdanieli

AB066462 – 3 (8x)

AB066469

DQ017588

DQ437565 – 20 (2x)

DQ016523

DQ437567 – 13 (4x)

AB079036 – 5 (3x)

AB079034

X80859 T. neocaledonicus

DQ437566 (T. cinnabarinus)

T. kanzawai

T. urticae

(T. turkestani)

T. truncatus

83

94

80

90

96

87

71

86

– 24 (2x)

DQ016523

AB079036 – 5 (3x)

83

1 C

Page 10: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

248 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

Fig. 5 Maximum likelihood tree of the genus Tetranychus based upon COI sequences. GenBank accessionnumbers and associated species name are given (except for T. cinnabarinus, see text). If a haplotype is foundmore than once, the accession number is followed by the haplotype number (see Appendix) and the numberof times the haplotype is found between parentheses. Accessions deposited on GenBank as T. turkestani aremarked in grey. Accessions followed by the letter A or B indicate samples belonging to clade A and B respec-tively, deduced from Navajas (1998) and Navajas et al. (1998). Numbers on the branches indicate the percent-age bootstrap values (>50) based on NJ bootstrapping with ML settings (1,000 replicates). Bar at the lowerleft corner depicts the branch length corresponding to 10% maximum likelihood distance

0.1

X80859DQ437566

DQ437551X80858

X80857AB079041AB079040 – 4 (5x)AY044646 – 12 (2x)DQ437560 – 9 (3x)DQ437561AB079038AB079102AB079036 – 5 (3x)X80856DQ437563 – 8 (8x)AY044642 – 11 (3x)AB079112 – 7 (8x)

AB116566

AB079034AB079052

AB079035AB079033

AB079049AB116567

AB079043AB079042 – 6 (3x)

DQ017588DQ437564DQ437548DQ437565 – 20 (2x)DQ437553

AB066459AB066450 – 1 (16x)AB079045

AB066451 – 2 (2x)AJ414582

X80855AJ414583 – 10 (2x)

AJ316600AJ316603

AB066462 – 3 (8x)AB066468

AJ316598AJ316605

AB066458AJ316606

AJ316604AJ316602

AB066469AJ316599

AJ316597AB066466

X74571DQ437542 – 14 (2x)DQ437556 – 16 (2x)DQ016523

DQ016514DQ016517 – 15 (2x)DQ016524DQ016518DQ016521

DQ016519DQ016522DQ017589

DQ437567 – 13 (4x)DQ437568 – 18 (4x)DQ437555 – 19 (2x)

AB041255AB041253

X80870X80871

T. gloveri

T. pacificus

(T. cinnabarinus)

T. neocaledonicus

Petrobia hartiBryobia kissophila

Panonychus ulmi

T. mcdanieli

Panonychus mori

A

B

A

A

B

B

T. kanzawai

T. urticae

(T. turkestani)

T. truncatus

1

2

3

95

87

68

51

83

65

71

83

95

61

80

84

67

68

100

100

87

62

68

61

54

52

91

7151

100

57

64

65

AJ414583 – 10 (2x)AJ316600

AJ316603

AJ316604AJ316602

– 13 (4x)

X80870 Petrobia hartiPanonychus mori

A

87

68

51

83

83

84

68

91

1 C

Page 11: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 249

(clade 3 in Fig. 5) comprises T. urticae specimens all originating from China (bootstrapvalue = 100%). Hinomoto et al. (2007) renamed this clade T. truncatus. All other T. urticaespecimens form a group of highly divergent lineages (clade 2), which fall into several moreor less supported subclades. Moreover, within this group several specimens have beenidentiWed as T. turkestani, but these do not form a monophyletic group.

Discussion

The phylogenetic analysis of all COI sequences available in GenBank revealed novel pat-terns, which alter current views on species delineation and phylogeographic patterns in spi-der mites. In addition, we found that a number of accessions are probably registered undera wrong species name. This may in the past have led to erroneous interpretations of phylo-genetic patterns that included these GenBank accessions.

One application of phylogenetic analysis is the identiWcation of natural groupings inphylogenetic trees that represent biological species (DNA taxonomy). Our most inclusiveassemblage of data shows new, and previously unnoticed, groups that most likely concerndiVerent species (Fig. 5). In particular, the phylogenetic patterns within T. urticae diVerfrom these of previous studies and provide new insights in the evolutionary history of thisgroup. Up to now, two clades within T. urticae were recognized, named clade A and B byNavajas et al. (1998) and Hinomoto et al. (2001) and lineage I and II by Xie et al. (2006a).The latter concluded that lineage I and II were consistent with the two clades A andB. However, this conclusion is not supported by our analysis. Our clade 2 (Fig. 5) containsspecimens of lineage II (Xie et al. 2006a) and clade A and B (Navajas et al. 1998). More-over, clade A and B disappear in our total analysis and new groupings emerge. Clade 3 con-tains specimens of lineage I. In fact, clade 3 is a well supported clade restricted to Chinathat clusters outside the other T. urticae samples. It is unclear from the study of Xie et al.(2006a) whether mites from clade 3 were morphologically diVerent from other T. urticaesamples. Clade 3 presumably represents T. truncatus, as suggested by Hinomoto et al.(2007), based on morphological identiWcation of newly sampled Japanese mites withhighly similar COI sequences.

Tetranychus urticae and Tetranychus turkestani

GenBank specimens listed as T. urticae and T. turkestani do not form separate monophy-letic clades (Fig. 5). This is in agreement with a study by Navajas and Boursot (2003) thatwas based on a smaller dataset. Although Navajas and Boursot (2003) were able to separatethe two species based on ITS2 sequence, this distinction was based on three diagnostic sitesonly. Moreover, intraspeciWc and intra-individual variation within ITS2 was found, whichfurther questions the recognition of two diVerent species. In addition, there are no discretemorphological diVerences between the two species. Taxonomic identiWcation is based oncontinuous traits (e.g., the shape of the aedeagus of males) and there is no thorough studydescribing variation of these traits within and between these species. The current data donot support the maintenance of T. turkestani as a separate species.

Host plant relationships

Host race formation is another evolutionary process studied in spider mites that mayexplain the diversity in this group of mites. Phylogenetics is one approach to assess spider

1 C

Page 12: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

250 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

mite––host plant associations. Most Tetranychus species are reported from many diVerenthost plant species. For example, Bolland et al. (1998) described 911 diVerent host plantspecies for T. urticae, belonging to 121 plant families. We found no correlation betweenCOI divergence and associated host plant species (Fig. 5 and Appendix), similar to whatwas found by Navajas (1998). Even strains with identical COI haplotypes can be found onvery diVerent host plant species. Also the other two relatively well sampled speciesT. kanzawai and T. truncatus do not show host plant associations.

Phylogeographic patterns

Phylogenetic analysis is also used for determining phylogeographic distribution patterns(Avise 2000). Phylogeographic information is important for assessing historic migrationand colonization routes and can also be used for tracing the origin of accidental introduc-tions. For T. kanzawai, two main clades are distinguished originating from eastern Asia(Japan, Taiwan and China), except one sample that originates from Congo. This suggeststhat T. kanzawai has a mainly eastern Asian distribution. However, Bolland et al. (1998)reported T. kanzawai from all over the world, but it is not known if these samples fallwithin the clades found so far. Clade 3 (T. truncatus) appears restricted to China (Fig. 5).

Within T. urticae no phylogeographic pattern is apparent with respect to COI variation.Samples form Europe, Asia, and North and South America are scattered over the tree. Thephylogeographic patterns previously described by Navajas et al. (1998) completely disap-peared. They found an entirely Mediterranean clade (clade A) and a clade of mixed origin(clade B). Because the Mediterranean clade had the highest diversity, they argued that thisregion served as a source from which other non-Mediterranean regions of the northernhemisphere were recently colonized by a subset of the Mediterranean clades (Navajas et al.1998; Hinomoto et al. 2001). However, inclusion of all currently available sequences doesnot support their conclusion. Clade A and B fall apart and moreover, many more clades arefound. There are several possible explanations for the absence of clear phylogeographicpatterns. First, such patterns may simply not exist. Second, T. urticae is a pest species onmany crops and ornamentals and it is likely that the international trade in crops has inXu-enced the distribution of the mites around the world. This will obscure any correlationbetween geographical location and phylogeny. Finally, selective sweeps can greatly inXu-ence phylogenetic patterns (Ballard and Rand 2005). Evidence is accumulating that selec-tive sweeps are often associated with the presence of reproductive parasites such asWolbachia and Cardinium (Hurst and Jiggins 2005).

Phylogenetic inferences and DNA barcoding

The analyzed COI region shows considerable variation among the tetranychids examined.The diversity within species is especially high with a maximum of 7.2%. This is a mixedblessing: it makes COI suitable for investigating intraspeciWc variation, but its usefulnessfor resolving phylogenetic species relationships remains limited. The latter is due to astrongly biased nucleotide composition at the third codon position and consequently satura-tion at this position. Variation at Wrst and second codon positions is very low. As a result,relationships between taxa are diYcult to resolve, especially at the deeper nodes. Anextremely high AT content and saturation at the third codon position was also encounteredin other studies, for the same COI fragment as used in this study in parasitengona mites andfor the adjacent COI region in velvet worms (Onychophora) (Gleeson et al. 1998; Sölleret al. 2001).

1 C

Page 13: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 251

The COI fragment analyzed in this study is diVerent from the usual DNA barcodingfragment, which is located at the 5� end side of our fragment (Fig. 1). Because this barcod-ing fragment is ampliWed by primers developed by Folmer et al. (1994) it is referred to asthe Folmer fragment (Erpenbeck et al. 2006). Substitution patterns may diVer between genepartitions and may result in diVerent phylogenetic signals for these partitions (Erpenbecket al. 2006). To determine whether our fragment had the same phylogenetic signal as thecommonly used Folmer fragment we compared the substitution patterns of both fragments.We did not Wnd diVerent substitution patterns when investigating 294–448 bp of the Folmerfragment for samples for which this fragment was available (results not shown). A datasetof 27 unique sequences (representing 46 samples) revealed a highly similar substitutionpattern with transversions outnumbering transitions resembling the patterns in Fig. 3. Wetherefore assume that analyzing the Folmer fragment for tetranychid mites will reveal simi-lar patterns as found in this study.

Currently, the Folmer fragment is widely used as a gene partition for barcoding species(e.g., Gómez et al. 2007; Hebert et al. 2003, 2004), although other fragments have alsobeen proposed (e.g., in plants; Kress et al. 2005). DNA barcoding assumes that genetic dis-tances between species are greater than within species. In that way, clusters of similarsequences represent species, clearly separated from other clusters (species). Hebert et al.(2003) proposed the use of a standard threshold (divergence value) to identify species. Upto now, several studies have reported successful barcoding of species (e.g., Barret andHebert 2005; Gómez et al. 2007; Hebert et al. 2003, 2004). However, often, intraspeciWcvariation was not at all or not thoroughly investigated, because only one or two individualsper species were analyzed or geographic sampling was restricted (Dasmahapatra andMallet 2006; Prendini 2005). This may result in signiWcant underestimation of the amountof intraspeciWc variation. Additionally, interspeciWc variation might be overestimated ifclosely related sister taxa are not included in the analysis. Therefore, it is necessary to ana-lyze samples from more than one geographic region and to include closely related sisterspecies. Our study comprises an analysis of three closely related species that were widelysampled and showed extensive amounts of intraspeciWc variation. Moreover, in severalcases intraspeciWc variation exceeded interspeciWc variation between the species, as is illus-trated by overlapping frequency distributions of intra- and interspeciWc pairwise p-dis-tances (Fig. 6). For example, diVerences within T. urticae reach up to 7.2%, exceeding theminimum 3.7% diVerence between T. urticae and T. kanzawai. Thus the general barcodingassumption that intraspeciWc variation is smaller than interspeciWc variation is violated intetranychids, indicating that simply relying on genetic distances is not suYcient for speciesidentiWcation. This clearly illustrates the importance of including samples of various, geo-graphically diVerent populations for each species, and to include comparisons with sisterspecies, when investigating the eYcacy of barcoding. It also shows the need to include phy-logenetic information to delineate species groupings, instead of simply relying on sequencedivergences (Prendini 2005; RubinoV et al. 2006). A careful analysis of the DNA phylog-eny, preferably in a multi disciplinary approach (including multiple gene data, morphologi-cal, ecological or other relevant data), can assist in deWning or delimiting species, but theuse of single sequences in combination with a threshold seems insuYcient to simply iden-tify species.

Reproductive parasites and selective sweeps

There are a number of additional problems associated with the use of a single mitochon-drial gene for barcoding. Hybridization can result in reticulate evolutionary relationships

1 C

Page 14: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

252 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

between species and disturb groupings into species based on mtDNA. Selective sweeps ofmtDNA can both homogenize or increase mtDNA diversity. The widespread occurrence ofreproductive parasites in arthropods can both inXuence the frequency of hybridizationbetween host species and indirectly cause selective sweeps of mtDNA (Hurst and Jiggins2005). These parasites can cause homogenization of biological species after hybridizationfollowed by spreading of the intracellular reproductive parasite. The mitochondrial haplo-type is dragged along with these parasites resulting in replacement of the original mito-chondrial haplotype and reducing mitochondrial diversity. In a recent study, Whitworthet al. (2007) found a lack of species monophyly in the blowXy genus Protocalliphora dueto introgressive hybridization associated with Wolbachia infection. On the other hand, thepresence of diVerent reproductive parasites co-infecting the same host species may increasethe levels of mitochondrial diversity within that host species if each parasite is tightlylinked to a diVerent haplotype (Schulenburg et al. 2002). Infection with reproductiveparasites may thus increase or decrease mitochondrial diversity and severely inXuence thepatterns of mitochondrial DNA variation.

Intracellular reproductive parasites such as Wolbachia, Cardinium, and Rickettsia,are widespread in tetranychid mites (Breeuwer and Jacobs 1996; Gotoh et al. 2003; Hoyand Jeyaprakash 2005; Xie et al. 2006b). They can cause cytoplasmic incompatibility(CI) and hybrid breakdown in spider mites (Breeuwer 1997; Gotoh et al. 2003, 2006;Vala et al. 2000). It is possible that the COI variation found within and between closelyrelated mite species is a result of selective sweeps caused by infection with reproductiveparasites. Variation within species is relatively high. It is not linked to geographicallocation nor associated with the host plant. An interesting next step would be to investi-gate the link between haplotype variation within COI and variation in reproductive par-asites. We should be especially cautious with the use of mitochondrial genes fordelineating and barcoding biological species in light of the presence of reproductiveparasites.

Fig. 6 Histogram of pairwise diVerences (p-distance) between 91 COI sequences within the family Tetrany-chidae. Pairwise diVerences are separated into three categories: 1. between individuals in the same species;2. between individuals in the same genus (excluding intraspeciWc diVerences); 3. between individuals in thesame family (excluding intraspeciWc and intrageneric diVerences). n = number of pairwise comparisons

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1. Within species x =2.86% n=660

2. Within genus x =7.59% n=1663

3. Within family x =13.14% n=1772

Pairwise p-distance (%)

ycneuqer f evitaleR

1 C

Page 15: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 253

Conclusions and recommendations

Accurate species delineation and identiWcation is important for our ability to understandand interpret evolutionary processes and ecological diversity in mites. It is also clear thatmites are a diYcult group to identify morphologically, as many key traits exhibit large phe-notypic plasticity and lack suitable characters for identiWcation. Many ecological, behav-ioral, genetic and pest-control studies have been conducted on various tetranychid speciesor strains, without the concurrent storage of voucher specimens, leading to subsequentuncertainty about the identity of the investigated specimens. In such cases, DNA barcodingcan be an important and powerful tool to assist in species identiWcation (Will et al. 2005).However, the use of a single (mitochondrial) gene for DNA barcoding or DNA taxonomyseems inappropriate. An integrative approach is needed combining nuclear and mitochon-drial genes, morphological characters, and ecological information (and if possible crossingexperiments).

A combined analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear markers is commonly used to avoidthe problem that gene trees are not necessarily congruent with species trees and for thedetection of hybridization. The challenge is to Wnd suitable nuclear markers and robust geo-graphic sampling designs that allow for the assessment of intra- and interspeciWc variation.Navajas and Fenton (2000) and Cruickshank (2002) have investigated the suitability of var-ious molecular markers, but there is still a need for nuclear markers suitable for distinguish-ing closely related species. Recently, Sonnenberg et al. (2007) suggested the D1-D2 regionof the nuclear 28S rDNA gene as a taxonomic marker. It could complement DNA barcod-ing studies based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. In addition, molecular testing forreproductive parasites and crossing experiments using isofemale lines should be standardprocedure to delineate biological species.

Acknowledgements We thank Tom Groot for collecting mite specimens and Steph Menken and threeanonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript. This research was funded by The Netherlands Orga-nisation for ScientiWc Research (NWO; ALW4PJ/03–25).

Appendix

List of tetranychid COI sequences from GenBank and the sequences obtained in this study.Sequences were collected from GenBank on September 8th, 2006 (keywords for searchwere ‘cytochrome oxidase subunit I AND Tetranychidae’). Information on host plant spe-cies and geographic origin was extracted from the original reference article. Species nameswere copied from GenBank. ‘Haplotype number’ indicates groups of identical sequences.Sequences identical at the 390 bp part are indicated by the same number. Samples includedin the dataset for the phylogenetic analysis are marked grey in this column. ‘Form’ indi-cates the green (G) and red (R) color morphs of T. urticae. Genus name abbreviations:T=Tetranychus; A=Amphitetranychus; B=Bryobia; P=Panonychus; O=Oligonychus;M=Mononychellus; Eut=Eutetranychus; Euryt=Eurytetranychus; Eot=Eotetranychus.

1 C

Page 16: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

254 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

Hos

t pla

ntA

cces

sion

nr

Gen

Ban

kH

aplo

type

num

ber

Spec

ies

Cou

ntry

Com

mon

nam

eSc

ient

ific

nam

eFo

rmR

efer

ence

AB

0412

51P

. cit

riJa

pan

Citr

usC

itru

ssp

ec.

-1

AB

0412

5224

P. c

itri

Japa

nC

itrus

Cit

rus

spec

.-

1A

B04

1253

25P

. ulm

iJa

pan

App

leM

alus

spec

.-

1

AB

0412

54P

. osm

anth

iJa

pan

Swee

t Osm

anth

usO

sman

thus

frag

rans

-1

AB

0412

55P

. mor

iJa

pan

Mul

berr

yM

orus

spec

.-

1

AB

0412

56P

. mor

iJa

pan

Japa

nese

pea

rP

yrus

spe

c.-

1A

B04

1257

1T

. urt

icae

Japa

n-

--

1

AB

0664

492

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Clo

ver

Tri

foli

um r

epen

sG

2

AB

0664

501

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Soyb

ean

Gly

cine

max

G2

AB

0664

512

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Clo

ver

Tri

foli

um r

epen

sG

2A

B06

6452

1T

. urt

icae

Japa

nH

olly

hock

Alt

haea

ros

eaG

2

AB

0664

531

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Stra

wbe

rry

Fra

gari

a gr

andi

flor

aG

2

AB

0664

541

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Chr

ysan

them

umC

hrys

anth

emum

mor

ifol

ium

G2

AB

0664

551

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Ros

eR

osa

hybr

ida

G2

AB

0664

561

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Kid

ney

bean

Pha

seol

us v

ulga

ris

G2

AB

0664

571

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Swee

t pep

per

Cap

sicu

m a

nnuu

mG

2

AB

0664

58T

. urt

icae

Ital

yB

indw

eed

Con

volv

ulus

arv

ensi

sG

2

AB

0664

59T

. urt

icae

Bra

zil

Stra

wbe

rry

Fra

gari

a gr

andi

flor

aG

2A

B06

6460

1T

. urt

icae

Tha

iland

Ros

eR

osa

hybr

ida

G2

AB

0664

611

T. u

rtic

aeT

aiw

anSt

raw

berr

yF

raga

ria

gran

difl

ora

G2

AB

0664

623

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Car

natio

nD

iant

hus

cary

ophy

llus

R2

AB

0664

633

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Stra

wbe

rry

Fra

gari

a gr

andi

flor

aR

2A

B06

6464

3T

. urt

icae

Japa

nPa

nsy

Vio

la x

wit

troc

kian

aR

2

AB

0664

653

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Car

natio

nD

iant

hus

cary

ophy

llus

R2

AB

0664

66T

. urt

icae

Japa

nB

aby'

s br

eath

Gyp

soph

ila

pani

cula

taR

2

AB

0664

673

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Prai

rie

gent

ian

Eus

tom

a ru

sell

ianu

mR

2A

B06

6468

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Car

natio

nD

iant

hus

cary

ophy

llus

R2

AB

0664

69T

. urt

icae

Ital

yB

indw

eed

Con

volv

ulus

arv

ensi

sR

2

AB

0664

704

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

nT

eaC

amel

lia

sine

nsis

-2

AB

0790

33T

. kan

zaw

aiJa

pan

Kud

zu V

ine

Pue

rari

asp

ec.

-3

1 C

Page 17: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 255

AB

0790

34T

. kan

zaw

aiJa

pan

Yab

umam

e-

-3

AB

0790

35T

. kan

zaw

aiJa

pan

Yab

umam

e-

-3

AB

0790

365

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

nM

ulbe

rry

Mor

ussp

ec.

-3

AB

0790

375

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

nSt

raw

berr

yF

raga

ria

gran

difl

ora

-3

AB

0790

38T

. kan

zaw

aiJa

pan

Tea

Cam

elli

a si

nens

is-

3

AB

0790

394

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

nT

eaC

amel

lia

sine

nsis

-3

AB

0790

404

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

nE

ggpl

ant

Sola

num

mel

onge

na-

3

AB

0790

41T

. kan

zaw

aiJa

pan

App

leM

alus

spec

.-

3A

B07

9042

6T

. kan

zaw

aiJa

pan

Tea

Cam

elli

a si

nens

is-

3

AB

0790

43T

. kan

zaw

aiJa

pan

Tea

Cam

elli

a si

nens

is-

3

AB

0790

443

T. u

rtic

aeJa

pan

Stra

wbe

rry

Fra

gari

a gr

andi

flor

aR

3

AB

0790

45T

. urt

icae

Japa

nSt

raw

berr

yF

raga

ria

gran

difl

ora

G3

AB

0790

46P

. mor

iJa

pan

Pear

Pyr

ussp

ec.

-3

AB

0790

477

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

n-

--

4

AB

0790

488

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

n-

--

4

AB

0790

49T

. kan

zaw

aiJa

pan

--

-4

AB

0790

504

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

n-

--

4

AB

0790

514

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

n-

--

4

AB

0790

52T

. kan

zaw

aiJa

pan

--

-4

AB

0791

02T

. kan

zaw

aiT

aiw

an-

--

4A

B07

9103

5T

. kan

zaw

aiT

aiw

an-

--

4

AB

0791

047

T. k

anza

wai

Tai

wan

--

-4

AB

0791

058

T. k

anza

wai

Tai

wan

--

-4

AB

0791

067

T. k

anza

wai

Tai

wan

--

-4

AB

0791

077

T. k

anza

wai

Tai

wan

--

-4

AB

0791

087

T. k

anza

wai

Tai

wan

--

-4

AB

0791

097

T. k

anza

wai

Tai

wan

--

-4

AB

0791

107

T. k

anza

wai

Tai

wan

--

-4

AB

0791

118

T. k

anza

wai

Tai

wan

--

-4

AB

0791

127

T. k

anza

wai

Tai

wan

--

-4

AB

1165

66T

. kan

zaw

aiJa

pan?

--

-5

Hos

t pla

ntA

cces

sion

nr

Gen

Ban

kH

aplo

type

num

ber

Spec

ies

Cou

ntry

Com

mon

nam

eSc

ient

ific

nam

eFo

rmR

efer

ence

1 C

Page 18: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

256 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

Hos

t pla

ntA

cces

sion

nr

Gen

Ban

kH

aplo

type

num

ber

Spec

ies

Cou

ntry

Com

mon

nam

eSc

ient

ific

nam

eFo

rmR

efer

ence

AB

1165

67T

. kan

zaw

aiJa

pan?

--

-5

AB

1165

688

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

n?-

--

5

AB

1165

696

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

n?-

--

5

AB

1165

706

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

n?-

--

5

AB

1165

719

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

n?-

--

5

AB

1165

728

T. k

anza

wai

Japa

n?-

--

5

AB

1165

731

T. u

rtic

ae

Japa

n?-

-G

5

AB

1165

743

T. u

rtic

ae

Japa

n?-

-R

5

AF1

3110

5T

. urt

icae

So

uth

Kor

eaSo

ybea

nG

lyci

ne m

ax-

6

AF1

3110

6T

. cin

nab a

rinu

sSo

uth

Kor

eaSo

ybea

nG

lyci

ne m

ax-

6

AF1

3110

7T

. kan

zaw

aiSo

uth

Kor

ea-

Pis

um s

avit

um-

6

AF1

3110

8T

. tru

ncat

usSo

uth

Kor

eaSo

ybea

nG

lyci

ne m

ax-

6

AF1

3110

9T

. vie

nnen

sis

Sout

h K

orea

Che

rry

Pru

nus

serr

ulat

a-

6

AF1

3111

0T

. pie

rcei

Sout

h K

orea

Soyb

ean

Gly

cine

spec

.-

6

AJ3

1659

7T

. urt

icae

G

reec

eC

itrus

Cit

rus

lim

onR

7

AJ3

1659

8T

. urt

icae

It

aly

Citr

usC

itru

s li

mon

-7

AJ3

1659

9T

. urt

icae

Sp

ain

Citr

usC

itru

s au

rant

ium

-7

AJ3

1660

0T

. tur

kest

ani

Fran

ceSp

urge

Eup

horb

iasp

ec.

-7

AJ3

1660

110

T. t

urke

stan

iFr

ance

Stra

wbe

rry

Fra

gari

asp

ec.

-7

AJ3

1660

2T

. tur

kest

ani

Net

herl

ands

Bin

dwee

dC

onvo

lvul

us a

rven

sis

-7

AJ3

1660

3

T. t

urke

stan

iPo

land

Ros

eR

osa

spec

.-

7

AJ3

1660

4 T

. tur

kest

ani

USA

(C

A)

Stra

wbe

rry

Fra

gari

asp

ec.

-7

AJ3

1660

5T

. urt

icae

E

gypt

Bin

dwee

dC

onvo

lvul

us a

rven

sis

G7

AJ3

1660

6T

. urt

icae

T

unis

iaM

allo

wM

alva

spec

.R

7

AJ4

1458

2T

. urt

icae

N

ethe

rlan

dsE

lder

berr

ySa

mbu

cus

spec

.G

7

AJ4

1458

310

T. t

urke

stan

iFr

ance

Bin

dwee

dC

onvo

lvul

us a

r ven

sis

-7

AY

0446

4211

T. k

anza

wai

Chi

na-

--

8

AY

0446

4311

T. k

anza

wai

Chi

na-

--

8

AY

0446

4411

T. k

anza

wai

Chi

na-

--

8

1 C

Page 19: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 257

Hos

t pla

ntA

cces

sion

nr

Gen

Ban

kH

aplo

type

num

ber

Spec

ies

Cou

ntry

Com

mon

nam

eSc

ient

ific

nam

eFo

rmR

efer

ence

AY

0446

45

12T

. kan

zaw

aiC

hina

--

-8

AY

0446

46

T. k

anza

wai

Chi

na-

--

8A

Y32

0030

Eu.

ban

ksi

USA

(FL

)Sw

eet o

rang

eC

itru

ssp

ec.

-9

DQ

0165

14T

. urt

icae

C

hina

App

leM

alus

pum

ila

Mil

l.-

10

DQ

0165

1513

T. u

rtic

ae

Chi

naSo

ybea

nG

lyci

ne m

ax-

10

DQ

0165

1614

T. u

rtic

ae

Chi

naE

ggpl

ant

Sola

num

mel

onge

na-

10D

Q01

6517

15T

. urt

icae

C

hina

Peac

hA

myg

dalu

s pe

rsic

a-

10

DQ

0165

18T

. urt

icae

C

hina

App

leM

alus

pum

ila

Mil

l.-

10

DQ

0165

19T

. urt

icae

C

hina

Egg

plan

tSo

lanu

m m

elon

gena

-10

DQ

0165

2015

T. u

rtic

ae

Chi

naC

orn

Zea

may

s-

10D

Q01

6521

T. u

rtic

ae

Chi

naE

ggpl

ant

Sola

num

mel

onge

na-

10

DQ

0165

22T

. urt

icae

C

hina

App

leM

alus

pum

ila

Mil

l.-

10

DQ

0165

23T

. urt

icae

C

hina

Pipa

lF

icus

rel

igio

sa-

10

DQ

0165

24T

. urt

icae

C

hina

App

leM

alus

pum

ila

Mil

l.-

10D

Q01

7588

T. u

rtic

aeC

hina

Bea

nP

hase

olus

vul

gari

s-

10

DQ

0175

89T

. urt

icae

C

hina

--

-10

DQ

4375

4214

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

4316

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11D

Q43

7544

17T

. cin

naba

rinu

s C

hina

--

-11

DQ

4375

4513

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

463

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

4713

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

48T

. cin

naba

rinu

s C

hina

--

-11

DQ

4375

498

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

5018

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

51T

. cin

naba

rinu

s C

hina

--

-11

DQ

4375

5218

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11D

Q43

7553

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

5419

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

12 23

1 C

Page 20: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

258 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

Hos

t pla

ntA

cces

sion

nr

Gen

Ban

kH

aplo

type

num

ber

Spec

ies

Cou

ntry

Com

mon

nam

eSc

ient

ific

nam

eFo

rmR

efer

ence

DQ

4375

5519

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

5616

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11D

Q43

7557

18T

. cin

naba

rinu

s C

hina

--

-11

DQ

4375

588

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

5920

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

609

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11D

Q43

7561

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

629

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

638

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

64T

. cin

naba

rinu

s C

hina

--

-11

DQ

4375

6520

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

6617

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

6713

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11

DQ

4375

6818

T. c

inna

bari

nus

Chi

na-

--

11X

7457

1T

. urt

icae

Fr

ance

(Bea

n)P

hase

olus

vul

gari

s-

12

X79

901

M. p

rogr

esiv

usB

enin

Cas

sava

Man

ihot

esc

ulen

ta-

13

X80

855

T. u

rtic

aeFr

ance

Bea

nP

hase

olus

vul

gari

sR

14

X80

856

T. k

anza

wai

Con

goC

assa

vaM

anih

ot e

scul

enta

-14

X80

857

T. m

cdan

ieli

Fr

ance

Gra

peV

itis

vin

ifer

a-

14

X80

858

T. p

acif

icus

USA

(C

A)

Gra

peV

itis

vin

ifer

a-

14

X80

859

21T

. neo

cale

doni

cus

Ben

inC

owpe

aV

igna

ung

uicu

lata

-14

X80

860

21T

. glo

veri

1T

ahiti

Tar

oC

oloc

asia

spec

.-

14X

8086

1A

. vie

nnen

sis2

Fran

ceA

pple

Mal

us d

omes

tica

-14

X80

862

O. g

ossy

pii

Con

goC

assa

vaM

anih

ot e

scul

enta

-14

X80

863

Eot

. car

pini

Fran

ceE

urop

ean

Gra

peV

itis

vin

ifer

a-

14

X80

864

Eot

. til

iari

umFr

ance

Com

mon

Lim

eT

ilia

x e

urop

aea

-14

X80

865

O. u

nung

uis

Fran

ceM

edite

rran

ean

Cyp

ress

Cup

ress

us s

empe

rvir

ens

-14

X80

866

O. p

lata

niFr

ance

Lon

don

Plan

eP

lata

nus

acer

ifoli

a-

14

X80

867

Eot

. cor

yli

Fran

ceC

omm

on H

azel

Cor

ylus

ave

llana

-14

1 C

Page 21: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 259

Hos

t pla

ntA

cces

sion

nr

Gen

Ban

kH

aplo

type

num

ber

Spec

ies

Cou

ntry

Com

mon

nam

eSc

ient

ific

nam

eFo

rmR

efer

ence

X80

868

P. u

lmi

Fran

ceA

pple

Mal

us d

omes

tica

-14

X80

869

P. c

itri

Fran

ceC

herr

y L

aure

lP

runu

s la

uroc

eras

us-

14

X80

870

Pet

robi

a ha

rti

Fran

ceW

ood

sorr

elO

xali

ssp

ec.

-14

X80

871

B. k

isso

phila

Fran

ceIv

yH

eder

a he

lix

-14

X80

872

Eur

yt. b

uxi

Fran

ceB

oxw

ood

Bux

us s

empe

rvir

ens

-14

X99

873

A. q

uerc

ivor

us1

Japa

nM

ongo

lian

Oak

Que

rcus

mon

goli

ca-

15

X99

874

22A

. que

rciv

orus

1Ja

pan

Mon

golia

n O

akQ

uerc

us m

ongo

lica

-15

X99

875

22A

. vie

nnen

sis2

Japa

nY

oshi

no C

herr

yP

runu

s ye

doen

sis

-16

T. g

love

riT

. glo

veri

Tah

itiT

aro

Col

ocas

iasp

ec.

-14

NL

11

-N

ethe

rlan

dsE

urop

ean

Spin

dle

Euo

nym

us e

urop

aeus

-17

NL

21

-N

ethe

rlan

dsE

urop

ean

Hon

eysu

ckle

Lon

icer

a pe

ricl

ymen

um-

17

F11

-Fr

ance

Bla

ckth

orn

Pru

nus

spin

osa

-17

T1

1-

Unk

now

nC

ucum

ber

Cuc

umis

sat

ivus

-17

T2

1-

Net

herl

ands

Ros

eR

osa

spec

.-

17

VS4

-123

-U

SA (

AZ

)U

nkow

nU

nkno

wn

-17

P423

-Po

rtug

alC

itrus

Cit

rus

spec

.-

17

S12

24-

Spai

nO

rang

eC

itru

ssp

ec.

-17

PL4-

125

-Po

land

Plum

bP

runu

ssp

ec.

-17

Ref

eren

ces:

1. T

oda

et a

l. 20

00;

2. H

inom

oto

et a

l. 20

01; 3

. Hin

omot

o an

d T

akaf

uji 2

001;

4. U

npub

lishe

d 1;

sub

mitt

ed b

y T

akaf

uji e

t al.

29-J

an-0

25.

Unp

ublis

hed

2; s

ubm

itted

by

Hin

omot

o an

d T

akaf

uji,

7-A

ug-0

3; 6

. Lee

et a

l. 19

99; 7

. Nav

ajas

and

Bou

rsot

200

3; 8

. Unp

ublis

hed

3; s

ubm

itted

by

Hon

g et

al.,

10-

Jul-

01;

9. R

odri

gues

et a

l. 20

04; 1

0. X

ie e

t al.

2006

a; 1

1. U

npub

lishe

d 4;

Hon

g an

d X

ie (

and

othe

rs),

7-

Mar

-06;

12.

Fou

rnie

r et

al.

1994

; 13.

Nav

ajas

et a

l. 19

94; 1

4. N

avaj

as e

t al.

1996

b; 1

5. N

avaj

as e

t al.

1997

; 16.

Nav

ajas

et a

l. 19

9817

. Thi

s st

udy

1W

rong

ly s

ubm

itted

seq

uenc

es (

see

text

)2Su

bmitt

ed a

s T

. vie

nnen

sis,

ren

amed

as

A. v

ienn

ensi

s (N

avaj

as e

t al.

1994

)

1 C

Page 22: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

260 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

References

Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identiWcation. IEEE Trans Autom Contr 19:716–723Avise JC (2000) Phylogeography. The history and formation of species. Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MABallard JWO, Rand DM (2005) The population biology of mitochondrial DNA and its phylogenetic implica-

tions. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 36:621–642Barrett RDH, Hebert PDN (2005) Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes. Can J Zool 83:481–491Bolland HR, Gutierrez J, Flechtmann CHW (1998) World catalogue of the spider mite family (Acari:

Tetranychidae). Brill, Leiden, Boston, KolnBreeuwer JAJ, Jacobs G (1996) Wolbachia: intracellular manipulators of mite reproduction. Exp Appl Acarol

20:421–434Breeuwer JAJ (1997) Wolbachia and cytoplasmic incompatibility in the spider mites Tetranychus urticae and

T. turkestani. Heredity 79:41–47Cruickshank RH (2002) Molecular markers for the phylogenetics of mites and ticks. Syst Appl Acarol 7:3–14Dasmahapatra KK, Mallet J (2006) DNA barcodes: recent successes and future prospects. Heredity 97:254–

255Doyle JJ (1991) DNA protocols for plants. In: Hewitt G, Johnson AWB, Young JPW (eds) Molecular tech-

niques in taxonomy. Springer, BerlinDupont LM (1979) On gene Xow between Tetranychus urticae Koch, 1836 and Tetranychus cinnabarinus

(Boisduval) Boudreaux, 1956 (Acari: Tetranychidae): synonymy between the two species. Entomol ExpAppl 25:297–303

Ehara S (1999) Revision of the spider mite family Tetranychidae of Japan (Acari, Prostigmata). SpeciesDivers 4:63–141

Erpenbeck D, Hooper JNA, Worheide G (2006) CO1 phylogenies in diploblasts and the ‘Barcoding of Life’––arewe sequencing a suboptimal partition? Mol Ecol Notes 6:550–553

Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R (1994) DNA primers for ampliWcation of mitochondrialcytochrome C oxidase subunit I form diverse metazoan invertebrates. Molec Mar Biol Biotech 3:294–299

Frati F, Simon C, Sullivan J, SwoVord DL (1997) Evolution of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase II genein collembola. J Mol Evol 44:145–158

Gleeson DM, Rowell DM, Tait NN, Briscoe DA, Higgins AV (1998) Phylogenetic relationships amongOnychophora from Australasia inferred from the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I gene. MolPhylogenet Evol 10:237–248

Gómez A, Wright PJ, Lunt DH, Cancino JM, Carvalho GR, Hughes RN (2007) Mating trials validate the useof DNA barcoding to reveal cryptic speciation of a marine bryozoan taxon. Proc R Soc B 274:199–207

Gotoh T, Tokioka T (1996) Genetic compatibility among diapausing red, non-diapausing red and diapausinggreen forms of the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae). Jpn J Ent64:215–225

Gotoh T, Noda H, Hong XY (2003) Wolbachia distribution and cytoplasmic incompatibility based on asurvey of 42 spider mite species (Acari: Tetranychidae) in Japan. Heredity 91:208–216

Gotoh T, Noda H, Ito S (2006) Cardinium symbionts cause cytoplasmic incompatibility in spider mites.Heredity 98:13–20

Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, deWaard JR (2003) Biological identiWcations through DNA barcodes.Proc R Soc B 270:313–321

Hebert PDN, Stoeckle MY, Zemlak TS, Francis CM (2004) IdentiWcation of birds through DNA barcodes.Plos Biol 2:1657–1663

Hinomoto N, Osakabe M, Gotoh T, Takafuji A (2001) Phylogenetic analysis of green and red forms of thetwo-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae), in Japan, based on mito-chondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I sequences. Appl Entomol Zool 36:459–464

Hinomoto N, Takafuji A (2001) Genetic diversity and phylogeny of the Kanzawa spider mite, Tetranychuskanzawai, in Japan. Exp Appl Acarol 25:355–370

Hinomoto N, Tran DP, Pham AT, Le TBN, Tajima R, Ohashi K, Osakabe M, Takafuji A (2007) IdentiWcationof spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) by DNA sequences: a case study in Northern Vietnam. Int J Acarol33:53–60

Hoy MA, Jeyaprakash A (2005) Microbial diversity in the predatory mite Metaseiulus occidentalis (Acari:Phytoseiidae) and its prey, Tetranychus urticae (Acari : Tetranychidae). Biol Control 32:427–441

Hurst GDD, Jiggins FM (2005) Problems with mitochondrial DNA as a marker in population, phylogeo-graphic and phylogenetic studies: the eVects of inherited symbionts. Proc R Soc B 272:1525–1534

1 C

Page 23: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262 261

Kress WJ, Wurdack KJ, Zimmer EA, Weigt LA, Janzen DH (2005) Use of DNA barcodes to identify Xow-ering plants. P Natl Acad Sci USA 102:8369–8374

Lee ML, Suh SJ, Kwon YJ (1999) Phylogeny and diagnostic markers of six Tetranychus species (Acarina:Tetranychidae) in Korea based on the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I. J Asia-PaciWcEntomol 2:85–92

Lunt DH, Zhang DX, Szymura JM, Hewitt GM (1996) The insect cytochrome oxidase I gene: evolutionarypatterns and conserved primers for phylogenetic studies. Insect Mol Biol 5:153–165

Monaghan MT, Balke M, Gregory TR, Vogler AP (2005) DNA-based species delineation in tropical beetlesusing mitochondrial and nuclear markers. Phil Trans R Soc B 360:1925–1933

Moritz C, Cicero C (2004) DNA barcoding: promise and pitfalls. Plos Biol 2:1529–1531Navajas M, Gutierrez J, Bonato O, Bolland HR, Mapangoudivassa S (1994) IntraspeciWc diversity of the cas-

sava green mite Mononycellus progresivus (Acari, Tetranychidae) using comparisons of mitochondrialand nuclear ribosomal DNA-sequences and cross-breeding. Exp Appl Acarol 18:351–360

Navajas M, Fournier D, Lagnel J, Gutierrez J, Boursot P (1996a) Mitochondrial COI sequences in mites: evi-dence for variations in base composition. Insect Mol Biol 5:281–285

Navajas M, Gutierrez J, Lagnel J, Boursot P (1996b) Mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I in tetranychidmites: a comparison between molecular phylogeny and changes of morphological and life history traits.B Entomol Res 86:407–417

Navajas M, Gutierrez J, Gotoh T (1997) Convergence of molecular and morphological data reveals phyloge-netic information on Tetranychus species and allows the restoration of the genus Amphitetranychus(Acari:Tetranychidae). B Entomol Res 87:283–288

Navajas M (1998) Host plant associations in the spider mite Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae): in-sights from molecular phylogeography. Exp Appl Acarol 22:201–214

Navajas M, Lagnel J, Gutierrez J, Boursot P (1998) Species-wide homogeneity of nuclear ribosomal ITS2sequences in the spider mite Tetranychus urticae contrasts with extensive mitochondrial COI polymor-phism. Heredity 80:742–752

Navajas M, Fenton B (2000) The application of molecular markers in the study of diversity in acarology: areview. Exp Appl Acarol 24:751–774

Navajas M, Boursot P (2003) Nuclear ribosomal DNA monophyly versus mitochondrial DNA polyphyly intwo closely related mite species: the inXuence of life history and molecular drive. Proc R Soc B270:S124–S127

Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics14:817–818

Prendini L (2005) Comment on “Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes”. Can J Zool 83:498–504RubinoV D, Cameron S, Will K (2006) Are plant DNA barcodes a search for the Holy Grail? Trends Ecol

Evol 21:1–2Schulenburg JHGV, Hurst GDD, TetzlaV D, Booth GE, Zakharov IA, Majerus MEN (2002) History of infec-

tion with diVerent male-killing bacteria in the two-spot ladybird beetle Adalia bipunctata revealedthrough mitochondrial DNA sequence analysis. Genetics 160:1075–1086

Shapiro B, Rambaut A, Drummond AJ (2006) Choosing appropriate substitution models for the phylogeneticanalysis of protein-coding sequences. Mol Biol Evol 23:7–9

Söller R, Wohltmann A, Witte H, Blohm D (2001) Phylogenetic relationships within terrestrial mites (Acari:Prostigmata, Parasitengona) inferred from comparative DNA sequence analysis of the mitochondrialcytochrome oxidase subunit I gene. Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:47–53

Sonnenberg R, Nolte AW, Tautz D (2007) An evaluation of LSU rDNA D1-D2 sequences for their use inspecies identiWcation. Front Zool 4:6

Sullivan J, Abdo Z, Joyce P, SwoVord DL (2005) Evaluating the performance of a successive-approximationsapproach to parameter optimization in maximum-likelihood phylogeny estimation. Mol Biol Evol22:1386–1392

SwoVord DL (2002) PAUP*, Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). SinauerAssociates, Sunderland

SwoVord DL, Sullivan J (2003) Phylogeny inference based on parsimony and other methods using PAUP*.In: Salemi M, Vandamme A-M (eds) The phylogenetic handbook. A practical approach to DNA andprotein phylogeny. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG (1997) The CLUSTAL_X windows inter-face: Xexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic AcidsRes 25:4876–4882

Toda S, Osakabe M, Komazaki S (2000) InterspeciWc diversity of mitochondrial COI sequences in JapanesePanonychus species (Acari: Tetranychidae). Exp Appl Acarol 24:821–829

1 C

Page 24: phylogeny reviewed: host plant relationships, phylogeography, … · 2017-08-24 · Cicero 2004). DNA taxonomy may be based on one or several mitochondrial as well as nuclear DNA

262 Exp Appl Acarol (2007) 42:239–262

Vala F, Breeuwer JAJ, Sabelis MW (2000) Wolbachia-induced ‘hybrid breakdown’ in the two-spotted spidermite Tetranychus urticae Koch. Proc R Soc B 267:1931–1937

Vogler AP, Monaghan MT (2007) Recent advances in DNA taxonomy. J Zool Syst Evol Res 45:1–10Whitworth TL, Dawson RD, Magalon H, Baudry E (2007) DNA barcoding cannot reliably identify species

of the blowXy genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Proc R Soc B 274:1731–1739Will KW, Mishler BD, Wheeler QD (2005) The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxon-

omy. Syst Biol 54:844–851Xia X, Xie Z (2001) DAMBE: software package for data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. J Hered

92:371–373Xie L, Hong XY, Xue XF (2006a) Population genetic structure of the two-spotted spider mite (Acari: Tetr-

anychidae) from China. Ann Entomol Soc Am 99:959–965Xie L, Miao H, Hong XY (2006b) The two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae Koch and the carmine

spider mite Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval) in China mixed in their Wolbachia phylogenetic tree.Zootaxa 1165:33–46

Zhang ZQ, Jacobson RJ (2000) Using adult female morphological characters for diVerentiating Tetranychusurticae complex (Acari: Tetranychidae) from greenhouse tomato crops in UK. Syst Appl Acarol 5:69–76

1 C


Recommended