olives in the Western Cape of South Africa Chant Powell, Virgilio - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Oct 08, 2023 223 likes •390 views

The 2018 Joint BIMF-FBIP Forum Cape St Francis, Eastern Cape 13 th 16 th August 2018 Barcoding of parasitoid wasps (Braconidae and Chalcidoidea) associated with wild and cultivated olives in the Western Cape of South Africa Chant Powell,

SLIDE 1

Barcoding of parasitoid wasps (Braconidae and Chalcidoidea) associated with wild and cultivated

lives in the Western Cape of South Africa

The 2018 Joint BIMF-FBIP Forum

Cape St Francis, Eastern Cape 13th – 16th August 2018

Chanté Powell, Virgilio Caleca, Martina Sinno, Michaela van Staden, Simon van Noort, Clint Rhode, Elleunorah Allsopp, Barbara van Asch

SLIDE 2

Introduction

Wild and cultivated olives host a variety of insects Rich assemblage of native wasps

Natural enemies of olive fruit flies
Pests
Status unknown

Bactrocera oleae Bactrocera biguttala

www.tokopedia.com

SLIDE 3

Research aim

To associate DNA barcoding sequences with morphologically identified braconid and chalcid wasps reared from wild and cultivated olives

SLIDE 4

Workflow

Sample collection Morphological ID & photographic imaging DNA extraction, PCR amplification & sequencing Phylogenetics & sequence divergence

www.winelandsweb.co.za innoliva.com www.sciencedirect.com

SLIDE 5

Braconidae – Four species

Novel reference sequences for two species

Psyttalia humilis Psyttalia lounsburyi Utetes africanus Bracon celer

SLIDE 6

Braconidae – Successful example

n Min Max Mean

P. carinata

6 0.20 1.70 0.80 ± 0.002

P. concolor

6 0.00 0.70 0.30 ± 0.001

P. fletcheri

6 0.00 0.30 0.10 ± 0.001

P. humilis

9 0.00 1.30 0.80 ± 0.003

P. lounsburyi

31 0.00 1.30 0.50 ± 0.002

P. ponerophaga

5 0.30 0.80 0.50 ± 0.002

Pysttalia intraspecific genetic distances (%)

Neighbour- joining tree

SLIDE 7

Braconidae – Unsuccessful example

Neighbour-joining tree

SLIDE 8

Chalcidoidae – Five species

Novel reference sequences for four species

Eurytoma oleae Eurytoma varicolor Sycophila aethiopica Eupelmus spermophilus Neochrysocharis formosus Ormyrus sp.

SLIDE 9

Chalcidoidae – Successful example

n Min Max Mean

E. annulatus

9 0.00 8.70 4.50 ± 0.007

E. azureus

10 0.20 5.60 2.59 ± 0.004

E. confusus

38 0.00 6.90 1.91 ± 0.003

E. gemellus

21 0.00 2.70 1.32 ± 0.003

E. kiefferi

25 0.00 5.50 1.62 ± 0.003

E. longicalvus

7 0.60 4.80 2.41 ± 0.004

E. minozonus

5 0.20 2.70 1.57 ± 0.004

E. spermophilus

10 0.40 2.30 1.12 ± 0.003

E. urozonus

25 0.20 4.00 1.61 ± 0.003

Eupelmus intraspecific genetic distances (%)

Neighbour-joining tree

SLIDE 10

Chalcidoidae – Unsuccessful example

Neighbour-joining tree

SLIDE 11

Conclusions & Future developments

Morphological ID congruent with DNA data (six species)

Difficulties highlight importance of good taxonomic coverage

No clear evidence for cryptic diversity Early detection of invasions, dissemination and infestation outbreaks

Egg Larva Pupa

www.researchgate.net

SLIDE 12

Acknowledgements

Olive growers and landowners FBIP – Small Grants and Biodiversity Surveys

SLIDE 13

Thank you for listening!

SLIDE 14

Braconidae – Successful example

1 2 3 4 5 6

P. carinata

− 0.014 0.017 0.015 0.014 0.012

P. concolor

12.50 − 0.014 0.008 0.012 0.013

P. fletcheri

16.30 12.40 − 0.015 0.014 0.017

P. humilis

13.20 13.20 13.00 − 0.012 0.014

P. lounsburyi

13.20 9.20 11.70 8.80 − 0.015

P. ponerophaga

8.30 11.50 16.00 12.20 13.40 −

Pysttalia interspecific mean genetic distances (%)

n Min Max Mean

P. humilis (this study) 3 0.00 0.30 0.00 ± 0.001
P. humilis (Genbank)

6 0.00 1.30 0.70 ± 0.002

n Min Max Mean

P. lounsburyi (this study)

4 0.20 0.30 0.20 ± 0.001

P. lounsburyi (Genbank)

27 0.00 1.30 0.40 ± 0.001

P. humilis intraspecific genetic distances (%)
P. lounsburyi intraspecific genetic distances (%)

SLIDE 15

Chalcidoidae – Successful example

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

E. annulatus

− 0.016 0.016 0.013 0.016 0.015 0.017 0.018 0.016

E. azureus

13.40 − 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.015 0.016 0.018 0.016

E. confusus

13.80 13.80 − 0.014 0.016 0.012 0.014 0.017 0.014

E. gemellus

10.90 13.10 11.00 − 0.014 0.013 0.014 0.017 0.015

E. kiefferi

14.30 13.80 13.70 11.70 − 0.016 0.014 0.017 0.013

E. longicalvus

12.70 13.70 10.30 10.20 13.60 − 0.015 0.017 0.015

E. minozonus

15.80 15.40 12.10 11.90 12.20 12.30 − 0.017 0.011

E. spermophilus 17.00 16.90 15.90 15.90 16.10 15.50 15.10

− 0.017

E. urozonus

13.80 14.80 12.10 12.10 10.90 12.50 7.80 16.1 −

Eupelmus interspecific mean genetic distances (%)

n Min Max Mean

E. annulatus

9 0.00 8.70 4.50 ± 0.007

E. azureus

10 0.20 5.60 2.59 ± 0.004

E. confusus

38 0.00 6.90 1.91 ± 0.003

E. gemellus

21 0.00 2.70 1.32 ± 0.003

E. kiefferi

25 0.00 5.50 1.62 ± 0.003

E. longicalvus

7 0.60 4.80 2.41 ± 0.004

E. minozonus

5 0.20 2.70 1.57 ± 0.004

E. spermophilus

10 0.40 2.30 1.12 ± 0.003

E. urozonus

25 0.20 4.00 1.61 ± 0.003

Eupelmus intraspecific genetic distances (%)