Next Article in Journal
Effects of Default Option and Lateral Presentation on Consumer Choice of the Sustainable Option in an Online Choice Task
Next Article in Special Issue
Environmental Risk Assessment of Living Modified Microorganisms (LMM) on the Indigenous Microbial Community
Previous Article in Journal
Regenerative—The New Sustainable?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nitrogen Deficiency-Dependent Abiotic Stress Enhances Carotenoid Production in Indigenous Green Microalga Scenedesmus rubescens KNUA042, for Use as a Potential Resource of High Value Products
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 13
10.3390/su12135481
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Genetic and Morphologic Variation in a Potential Mosquito Biocontrol Agent, Hydrochara Affinis (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae)

by
Ji Hyoun Kang
1,
Changseob Lim
2,
Sung Hwan Park
2,
Wang Gyu Kim
3,
Nattawut Sareein
2,† and
Yeon Jae Bae
1,2,*
1
Korean Entomological Institute, College of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea
2
Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Graduate School, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea
3
Institute of Life Science and Natural Resources, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Present Address: Environmental Science Research Center, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand.
Sustainability 2020, 12(13), 5481; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135481
Submission received: 31 May 2020 / Revised: 1 July 2020 / Accepted: 2 July 2020 / Published: 7 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Harmful Organisms and their Management for Sustainable Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Hydrochara affinis (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae), a water scavenger beetle, was recently identified as a natural and effective agent for biological mosquito control; it was reported to exhibit high rates of mosquito larvae predation. However, maintaining the quality (i.e., natural ecological attributes, such as genetic variation) of laboratory-reared populations is essential for ensuring the long-term success of biological control programs. Accordingly, here, we aimed to use mitochondrial Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) sequences to document the genetic diversity, population structure, and phylogenetic position of natural and lab-reared H. affinis populations in South Korea and use geometric morphometric analysis to investigate the populations’ morphological divergence. The natural H. affinis populations possessed high genetic diversity and numerous COI haplotypes, suggesting that these populations were healthy and could be directly applied to mosquito habitats without alterations to their natural genetic attributes. The lab-reared populations also possessed high genetic diversity and, thus, the potential for high adaptive capacity to new environments. Although no distinct population genetic structures were observed, quantitative variation was observed in the body shape of both the natural and lab-reared populations. The high levels of genetic and morphologic variation observed in the H. affinis populations examined here indicate the species’ favorable conservation status, genetic diversity, adaptive capacity, and, thus, “suitability” for field application as an effective mosquito control agent.

1. Introduction

The Hydrophilidae (i.e., water scavenger beetles) is one of the largest families of aquatic insects [1], and the larvae of some hydrophilid species have been reported as effective predators of mosquito larvae [2]. Hydrochara affinis (Hydrophilidae: Hydrophilinae), for example, was recently described as an effective biological control agent for mosquitos in South Korea, and both the efficacy and preference of H. affinis for mosquito (Culex pipiens molestus and Ochlerotatus togoi) larvae were investigated under laboratory conditions [3]. Third instar H. affinis consumed more mosquito larvae than other developmental stages, and prey handling time decreased dramatically with the progression of H. affinis development (i.e., instar number). The maximum numbers of consumed mosquito larvae, which were estimated using predation curves, were 926 and 304 larvae per day for C. pipiens molestus and O. togoi, respectively, and H. affinis exhibited a preference for C. pipiens molestus when both C. pipiens molestus and O. togoi were offered simultaneously [3].
For successful application, the introduction of predators into natural fields for biological pest control must consider several details, including predator efficiency and longevity and the level of expected disturbances to naturally existing populations. With regard to mosquito control, however, biocontrol efforts have focused mainly on the larvicidal efficiency of predator species [2,3,4], and the genetic compositions of the target populations have rarely been considered. Rudimentary population genetic information has been incorporated into biological control programs, before release, in terms of safety and efficacy [5,6,7]. For example, genetic analysis of the root-crown mining weevil (Ceutorhynchus scrobicollis), which was being considered as a biological control agent for garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), provided an estimate of the number of individuals required from a focal area to obtain the high level of genetic diversity of control agent [7], and analysis of cultured (quarantined) and naturalized (after release) populations of the mirid bug Eccritotarsus catarinensis, a water hyacinth biological control agent, revealed that genetic bottleneck events did not affect the genetic diversity of introduced biocontrol populations [8]. Thus, population genetic data can be useful for evaluating the distribution and differentiation of candidate biological control agent populations [7,8]. Mass rearing systems must be established and maintained for the successful and repeated release of biocontrol agents into natural habitats, and the quality (i.e., natural ecological attributes, such as genetic variation) of laboratory-reared populations is essential for ensuring the long-term success of biological control programs. However, systems for the mass rearing of insects in the lab are likely to incur high rates of inbreeding and, thus, reductions in fitness (e.g., fecundity), growth rate, and viability [9,10,11]. Indeed, such issues have been noted since the advent of biocontrol research in the 1970s [9], and biocontrol efforts should also aim to prevent any negative effects of agent release on the genetic attributes of natural populations.
Morphological variation indicates the ecological characteristics of populations as well as their capacity to adapt to different local environments [12,13,14,15,16]; as such, geometric morphometric analysis has been used to investigate the roles of both environmental factors and genetic components in shaping morphological variation [17,18,19,20]. Indeed, differences in the morphologies of populations under different environmental conditions can indicate the capacities of these populations to adapt to new environments [21,22]. The introduction of H. affinis from mass laboratory production to various mosquito habitats will entail novel selection pressures, owing to differences in environmental conditions. Thus, the differences in the morphology of the natural and laboratory populations might indicate whether those variations are the result of genetic divergence or phenotypic plasticity [23]. Furthermore, in the case of long-term biological control, geometric morphometric variations in the body shape of populations can also provide information about the adaptive capacity of natural populations following the introduction of lab-reared population.
Though the efficacy of H. affinis as a mosquito larvae predator has been described previously [3,24], the genetic (e.g., genetic diversity and structure) and phylogenetic characteristics of H. affinis populations in South Korea are yet to be reported. In particular, the genetic characteristics of H. affinis should be investigated to ensure success of the long-term biological control procedure including field application. Accordingly, the aims of the present study were to use mitochondrial Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) sequences to document the genetic diversity, population structure, and phylogenetic position of natural and lab-reared H. affinis populations in South Korea and use geometric morphometric analysis to investigate the populations’ morphological divergence. These results will provide valuable information about the current conservational status of natural H. affinis populations and will elucidate the genetic and adaptive properties of “mass laboratory production population”, needed to establish a successful mosquito biological control system.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection and COI Sequencing

In total, 82 H. affinis specimens (four larvae and 78 adults) were collected from 21 sampling locations in South Korea (Figure 1) and from one laboratory rearing (breeding) population at the Deokso Korea University Research farm. Specimens (N = 15) of an endemic and co-occurring congener, Hydrochara libera [25,26], were also collected from one location, to investigate the species’ phylogenetic relationship to H. affinis. All specimens were stored in 96% ethanol for genetic analyses.
Genomic DNA was extracted from a femur of the adult specimens and from a whole leg of the larva specimens using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Germanton, NC, USA). A fragment (771 bp) of the mitochondrial Cytochrome c oxidase I gene (COI) was then polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-amplified using specific forward (C1-J-2183: CAA CAT TTA TTT TGA TTT TTT GG) and reverse (TL2-N-3014: TCC AAT GCA CTA ATC TGC CAT ATT A) primers [28] and the following conditions: initial denaturation of 1 min at 94 °C; 35 cycles of 30 s at 94 °C, 30 s at 50 °C, and 1–2 min at 72 °C; and a final extension step of 7 min at 72 °C. After electrophoresis on 1.5% agarose gels, the amplification was verified visually using UV light. The verified PCR products were purified enzymatically using Exonuclease I and Shrimp Alkaline Phosphatase (New England BioLabs, Ipswich, MA, USA) and then sequenced by Macrogen INC Sequencing (Korea) on an ABI PRISM 3130xl Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). The COI sequences of H. libera and H. affinis were deposited in GenBank under accession numbers MT506869–MT506883 and MT549695–MT549757, respectively.

2.2. Phylogenetic Reconstruction and Haplotype Network Analysis

Phylogenetic tree reconstruction was performed using 110 COI sequences, which included 82 and 15 newly obtained sequences for H. affinis and H. libera, respectively. Additional sequences (N = 13) for Hydrochara species (N = 11), including H. affinis (KF128915) and H. libera (KY554236), and two outgroup species (N = 2), Sternolophus rufipes (KF128913) and S. marginicollis (KC935325), were downloaded from the GenBank database. Sequence alignment was performed using the Clustal-W multiple sequences alignment package [29], implemented in BioEdit 7.1.9 [30], and MEGA7.0.14 [31] was used to estimate P-distance, to evaluate the overall mean distance and the evolutionary divergence between specific sequences. For phylogenetic analysis, Bayesian phylogenetic inference was performed using MrBayes 3.2 [32], with GTR+G as the best-fit substitution model, which was determined using AICc in jModeltest 2.1.7 [33]. The MCMC run involved 5,000,000 generations with four chains, and the first 25% of the samples were discarded as burn-in. Maximum-likelihood (ML) analysis was performed using the same model with 1000 bootstrap replicates and was implemented using PhyML Web-Servers [34].
Haplotypes of the 82 H. affinis individuals were determined using Neighbor-Joining algorithms in DnaSP v5 [35], and a haplotype network was inferred using HAPSTAR v0.7 [36]. Genetic diversity indices, including haplotype diversity (h) and nucleotide diversity (π), were estimated using ARLEQUIN v3.5 [37], and Tajima’s D and Fu’s Fs statistics were calculated to test for neutrality. Haplotype richness was calculated for the five populations from which at least five specimens (N ≥ 5) had been collected using a rarefaction method in CONTRIB v1.02 [38], which corrects for unequal sample sizes among populations.

2.3. Geometric Morphometric Analyses

In total, 86 H. affinis specimens from lab-rearing and natural population, were used for morphometric analyses. The ventral side of each individual was independently photographed three times to reduce imaging errors using a Nikon D750 digital camera (Nikon Co., Japan), and the photographs were converted to .tps files using tpsUtil v.1.74 [39] to generate landmarks. Twenty-four anatomically homologous landmarks that are commonly used in beetles [40,41] were selected for morphometric analysis (Figure 2a), and the specimen data were digitized using tpsDig v. 2.30 [42]. The entire configuration dataset was regarded as object symmetry to remove configuration reflection [43,44]. Full Procrustes fit was implemented in MorphoJ v. 1.06d [45] to obtain shape variables and remove extraneous features, such as size, orientation, and location [43,45,46].
Procrustes ANOVA (analysis of variance) was performed to compute imaging errors from 258 raw coordinate configurations [43,47]; then, the three replicates of each specimen were combined. Canonical variate analysis (CVA) was performed, with 1000 round permutation tests, for the four populations (ST1, 3, 19, and STL) from which more than five individuals had been collected, and populations ST1 and ST2 were considered one population (N = 14), owing to their geographic proximity (~4 km).

3. Results

3.1. Haplotype Analysis

The 771-bp COI sequences generated from the 82 H. affinis specimens yielded 50 variable sites, including 32 parsimony-informative sites and 18 singletons. The haplotype diversity (h) values ranged from 0.833 to 1.000, and the haplotype richness (hr) of populations ST1, ST2, ST3, ST19, ST20, and STL ranged from 2.770 to 4.000 (Table 1). Among the six locations from which five or more specimens were collected, ST2 (N = 8) yielded the greatest haplotype richness (hr) and nucleotide diversity (π). All the Tajima’s D and Fu’s Fs values were negative, except the Tajima’s D values of the STL population.
In total, 46 distinct COI haplotypes were identified (Table 1, Figure 3), with the greatest number (NH = 12) identified in the laboratory population (STL) (Table 1). Most (N = 33, 71.7%) of the haplotypes were obtained from single specimens (i.e., singletons), and only three of the distinct haplotypes, namely H24 (14.6%), H5 (13.4%), and H1 (6.1%) accounted for more than 5% of the specimens (Figure 3). Furthermore, the three main haplotypes (H1, H5, and H24), which were separated by less than three mutational steps, were obtained from 28 (34.1%) of the 82 specimens and were detected in 12 (54.5%) out of the 22 populations. In addition, the second most common haplotype (H5) was located at the center of the haplotype network, and the pattern of “star-like” haplotype network was identified from H. affinis in South Korea (Figure 3).

3.2. Geometric Morphometric Analysis

According to Procrustes ANOVA, the mean square for the individual level exceeded the imaging error level. Measurement errors only contributed to 2.91% of the individual variation and were, therefore, ignored (Table S1). The CVA revealed differences in the shape of the four included populations (Figure 2b), but significant differences (p < 0.05) were only observed between the shapes of the ST3 and STL populations and between the ST3 and ST19 populations (Figure 2b, Table 2).

3.3. Phylogenetic Status of H. affinis and H. libera in the Genus Hydrochara

The overall mean distance (d) between the 11 Hydrochara species was 0.0377 (SE = 0.0042), and the mean intraspecific genetic diversity for H. affinis and H. libera was 0.0049 (SE = 0.0009) and 0.0051 (SE = 0.0012), respectively.
The topology of the BI tree was congruent with that of the ML tree (Figure 4). Indeed, the monophyly of genus Hydrochara was strongly supported, with support values of 100 in both trees, and all the H. affinis sequences formed a clear monophyly with the high support values (≥98), as did the sequences from H. libera. No clusters were observed among the sequences from specific localities or regions.
Though only some of the relationships with Hydrochara were fully supported, H. affinis was the most closely related to H. flavipes, with support values of ≥97 in both phylogenetic trees and a mean genetic distance of 0.0508 (SE = 0.0087). Meanwhile, H. affinis and H. libera were more distantly related, with a mean distance of 0.0949 (SE = 0.0115).

4. Discussion

The high levels of genetic and morphologic variation observed in the H. affinis populations examined in the present study indicate the species’ favorable conservation status, genetic diversity, adaptive capacity, and, thus, “suitability” for field application as an effective mosquito control agent.
The high level of genetic diversity and richness of the natural H. affinis populations in South Korea (Figure 3, Table 1) indicate the species’ large effective population sizes (Ne) and relatively low risk of population reduction or extinction in the sampled areas. Furthermore, the absence of any distinct population structures implies that specimens from any site can be used for direct application in areas where mosquitos and H. affinis already co-occur without disturbing the genetic attributes of the local H. affinis populations. This is important because the invasion of native populations by non-native biological control agents during biological control efforts have been reported [48], and the introduction of new genetic components can disturb the original genetic attributes of the native populations [48]. Indeed, it would be nearly impossible to remove the introduced H. affinis lineages once they have been introduced, especially since the introduced larvae of H. affinis would persist and, after maturing, would interbreed with individuals from the natural populations, as has been reported for larvivorous fish and amphibians that have been introduced for mosquito control [49,50,51].
It is especially interesting that the laboratory rearing population investigated in the present study also maintained a relatively high level of genetic diversity (Table 1), which might indicate the population’s high capacity to adapt to various new environments. Indeed, the lab population’s genetic diversity (i.e., h and HR) was similar to that of the natural populations (Table 1). This is important because losses of genetic diversity are common among mass laboratory rearing populations of insects, and it is well known that inbreeding depression causes a variety of negative effects on fitness (e.g., low growth rate, reduced reproductive success, high mortality) [11,52,53]. Genetic diversity (i.e., intraspecific variation) is also fundamental to a species’ ability to adapt to environmental changes [7,54], and the capacity of biological control agents to adapt to new environmental conditions is critical for successful mosquito control, in particular, since mosquitos occur in a wide variety of habitats, including ponds, marshes, swamps, and variously polluted habitats. Indeed, the adaptive capacity of control agents also influences their survival and longevity, which thereby contributes to their efficacy.
The captive population examined in the present study was established three years prior (in 2016) and had been maintained through the continuous introduction of H. affinis specimens from natural habitats in South Korea. Though the source populations of the laboratory stock were not tracked, the population was observed to share haplotypes with several natural populations. Indeed, the haplotypes that were most common among the natural populations (H1, H5, and H24) also occurred at relatively high frequencies in the laboratory population (52.6% for all three), thereby indicating that the laboratory population was established from natural populations. The laboratory population’s relatively high intraspecific genetic variation and frequency of unique haplotypes (47.4%) also suggested that the population’s genetic diversity had not decreased significantly since its establishment. Thus, the results of the present study support the notion that the mixture of individuals from genetically distinct populations could be important for establishing and maintaining genetic variation in H. affinis rearing populations. The results also suggest that regular restocking from natural populations could help maintain the genetic diversity of laboratory rearing populations by facilitating outbreeding.
The genetic diversity presented here, for both natural and captive populations of H. affinis (Table 1), could be used as a standard for the level of diversity needed for H. affinis mosquito control systems established in South Korea. The study also provides a basis for evaluating the genetic diversity of rearing populations before their release to mosquito control sites and for detecting reductions in genetic diversity that could inhibit the efficacy of H. affinis.
In addition to measuring genetic diversity and richness, geometric morphometric analysis can also provide insight into the capacity of populations to adapt to new habitats. In the present study, the three natural populations that were examined exhibited clear morphologic differences and were even more distinct from the laboratory population (Figure 2b). Body shape is considered an important ecomorphological phenotype that reflects adaptation to complex aquatic habitats [55], and the shape-environment association with high plasticity has been widely reported [44]. Because morphological variation is affected by both genetic and environmental factors [56] and because the four H. affinis populations investigated in the present study exhibited low levels of genetic divergence (i.e., non-significant FST values; Table 2), it is possible that the body-shape variation in H. affinis represents a phenotypically plastic response to local environmental conditions (e.g., food, temperature, water flow, microhabitat), rather than genetic adaptation. The clear difference between the morphology of the natural populations and that of the laboratory population, with more controlled environmental conditions, further supports this conclusion. More importantly, however, these results demonstrate that the laboratory rearing population, which was established using individuals from multiple natural populations, has not lost its capacity to adapt to new environments. Indeed, it is possible that genetic diversity and body-shape variation could be used to evaluate the “suitability” of lab-reared populations as control agents before being released into natural mosquito habitats.
Though H. affinis has been investigated with regard to its use as a mosquito control agent, the present study is the first, to our knowledge, to report the phylogenetic position of the species using molecular phylogenetic analysis. The genus Hydrochara includes 22 species (excluding H. major, which was recently reclassified into the genus Brownephilus) [57,58,59,60], and three species (H. affinis, H. libera, and H. vincina) have been reported to occur on the Korean Peninsula [61,62,63,64,65], with H. affinis and H. libera sharing similar habitats and distributions [25,26]. However, only H. libera has been included in a molecular phylogenetic study [66]. Furthermore, several key morphological characters (e.g., maxillary palpus color, appendage (leg) color, and length of the posterior spine on the sternal keel) have been used to distinguish H. affinis and H. libera [57]. However, the genetic divergence of the two species has yet to be reported. The present study revealed that H. flavipes is more closely related to H. affinis than to H. libera (Figure 4). However, despite the phylogenetic and morphologic differences between H. affinis and H. libera, the two species share similar distributions, ecological niches, habitats, and life cycles [25], which indicates that H. libera could represent another mosquito control agent that is yet to be discovered. The present study represents the first genetic and morphologic assessment of an aquatic insect, H. affinis, as a biological mosquito control agent in South Korea and provides valuable information for establishing efficient systems for the laboratory production of high-quality biological control agents in general.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5481/s1. Table S1: Procrustes ANOVA for the shape of Hydrochara affinis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.H.K. and Y.J.B.; Methodology, J.H.K. and C.L.; Validation, J.H.K., C.L., and Y.J.B.; Formal Analysis: J.H.K. and C.L.; Resources, J.H.K., C.L., S.H.P., and N.S.; Data Curation, J.H.K. and C.L.; Writing—Original Draft, J.H.K., C.L., and Y.J.B.; Writing—Review & Editing, J.H.K., C.L., S.H.P., W.G.K., N.S., and Y.J.B.; Visualization, J.H.K. and C.L.; Supervision, Y.J.B.; Project Administration, W.G.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Korean Ministry of Environment (MOE) as part of the “Advanced Technology Program for Environmental Industry” (2016000210003) and a grant (NRF-2017R1C1B1010741) to J.H.K. from the Basic Science Research Program, through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), which is funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the members of the Biodiversity and Ecology Laboratory of Korea University for maintaining the laboratory rearing population and to Sang Woo Jung and Hwang-Goo Lee for their help with field sampling.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hansen, M. The hydrophiloid beetles. Phylogeny, classification and a revision of the genera (Coleoptera, Hydrophiloidea). Biol. Skr. 1991, 40, 1–367. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kumar, R.; Hwang, J.S. Larvicidal efficiency of aquatic predators: A perspective for mosquito biocontrol. Zool. Stud. 2006, 45, 447. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baek, H.M.; Kim, D.G.; Baek, M.J.; Lee, C.Y.; Kang, H.J.; Kim, M.C.; Yoo, J.S.; Bae, Y.J. Predation efficiency and preference of the Hydrophilid Water Beetle Hydrochara affinis (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae) larvae on two mosquitos Culex pipiens molestus and Ochlerotatus togoi under laboratory conditions. Korean J. Environ. Biol. 2014, 32, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shaalan, E.A.S.; Canyon, D.V. Aquatic insect predators and mosquito control. Trop. Biomed. 2009, 26, 223–261. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Unruh, T.R.; Woolley, J.B. Handbook of Biological Control; Bellows, T.S., Fisher, T.W., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1999; pp. 57–85. [Google Scholar]
  6. Roderick, G.K.; Navajas, M. Genes in new environments, genetics and evolution in biological control. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2003, 4, 889–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rauth, S.J.; Hinz, H.L.; Gerber, E.; Hufbauer, R.A. The benefits of pre-release population genetics: A case study using Ceutorhynchus scrobicollis, a candidate agent of garlic mustard. Alliaria Petiolata Biol. Control. 2011, 56, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Taylor, S.J.; Downie, D.A.; Paterson, I.D. Genetic diversity of introduced populations of the water hyacinth biological control agent Eccritotarsus catarinensis (Hemiptera: Miridae). Biol. Cont. 2011, 58, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mackauer, M. Genetic problems in the production of biological control agents. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1976, 21, 369–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kuriwada, T.; Kumano, N.; Shiromoto, K.; Haraguchi, D. Effect of mass rearing on life history traits and inbreeding depression in the sweetpotato weevil (Coleoptera: Brentidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 1144–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sørensen, J.G.; Addison, M.F.; Terblanche, J.S. Mass-rearing of insects for pest management: Challenges; synergies and advances from evolutionary physiology. Crop. Prot. 2012, 38, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Daly, H.V. Insect morphometrics. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1985, 30, 415–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Grant, P.R. Speciation and the adaptive radiation of Darwin’s Finches: The complex diversity of Darwin’s finches may provide a key to the mystery of how intraspecific variation is transformed into interspecific variation. Am. Sci. 1981, 69, 653–663. [Google Scholar]
  14. Grant, P.R.; Price, T.D. Population variation in continuously varying traits as an ecological genetics problem. Am. Zool. 1981, 21, 795–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Monteiro, L.R.; Nogueira, M.R. Adaptive radiations, ecological specialization, and the evolutionary integration of complex morphological structures. Evolution 2010, 64, 724–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Dujardin, J.P. Modern morphometrics of medically important insects. In Genetics and Evolution of Infectious Disease; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 473–501. [Google Scholar]
  17. Monteiro, L.R.; Diniz-Filho, J.A.F.; dos Reis, S.F.; Araújo, E.D. Geometric estimates of heritability in biological shape. Evolution 2002, 56, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Claude, J.; Paradis, E.; Tong, H.; Auffray, J.C. A geometric morphometric assessment of the effects of environment and cladogenesis on the evolution of the turtle shell. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2003, 79, 485–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Sharpe, D.M.; Räsänen, K.; Berner, D.; Hendry, A.P. Genetic and environmental contributions to the morphology of lake and stream stickleback: Implications for gene flow and reproductive isolation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2008, 10, 849–866. [Google Scholar]
  20. Raffini, F.; Fruciano, C.; Meyer, A. Morphological and genetic correlates in the left–right asymmetric scale-eating cichlid fish of Lake Tanganyika. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2018, 124, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Foster, D.J.; Podos, J.; Hendry, A.P. A geometric morphometric appraisal of beak shape in Darwin’s finches. J. Evol. Biol. 2017, 21, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Franssen, N.R. Anthropogenic habitat alteration induces rapid morphological divergence in a native stream fish. Evol. Appl. 2011, 4, 791–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cordell, S.; Goldstein, G.; Mueller-Dombois, D.; Webb, D.; Vitousek, P.M. Physiological and morphological variation in Metrosideros polymorpha, a dominant Hawaiian tree species, along an altitudinal gradient: The role of phenotypic plasticity. Oecologia 1998, 113, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ree, H.I.; Lee, W.J. Laboratory studies on predation efficacy of some Odonata nymphs and Coleoptera larvae against mosquito larvae. Korean J. Appl. Entomol. 1983, 13, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  25. Han, M.S.; Bang, H.S.; Kim, M.H.; Kang, K.K.; Jung, M.P.; Lee, D.B. Distribution characteristics of water scavenger beetles (Hydrophilidae) in Korean paddy field. Korean J. Environ. Agric. 2010, 29, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Choi, S.K.; Kim, M.H.; Choe, L.J.; Eo, J.; Bang, H.S. Prediction of the flight times of Hydrochara affinis and Sternolophus rufipes in paddy fields based on RCP 8.5 Scenario. Korean J. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2016, 18, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. ESRI. ArcGIS Desktop Release 10.5.1; Environmental Systems Research Institute: Redlands, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. Simon, C.; Frati, F.; Beckenbach, A.; Crespi, B.; Liu, H.; Flook, P. Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1994, 87, 651–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Thompson, J.D.; Higgins, D.G.; Gibson, T.J. CLUSTAL W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994, 22, 4673–4680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Hall, T.A. BioEdit: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 1999, 41, 95–98. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Tamura, K. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016, 33, 1870–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Ronquist, F.; Teslenko, M.; Van Der Mark, P.; Ayres, D.L.; Darling, A.; Höhna, S.; Larget, B.; Liu, L.; Suchard, M.A.; Huelsenbeck, J.P. MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst. Biol. 2012, 61, 539–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Darriba, D.; Taboada, G.L.; Doallo, R.; Posada, D. jModelTest 2: More models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Guindon, S.; Dufayard, J.F.; Lefort, V.; Anisimova, M.; Hordijk, W.; Gascuel, O. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: Assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol. 2010, 59, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Librado, P.; Rozas, J. DnaSP v5: A software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 1451–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Teacher, A.G.F.; Griffiths, D.J. HapStar: Automated haplotype network layout and visualization. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2011, 11, 151–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Excoffier, L.; Laval, G.; Schneider, S. Arlequin (version 3.0): An integrated software package for population genetics data analysis. Evol. Bioinform. 2005, 1, 47–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Petit, R.J.; Mousadik, A.E.; Pons, O. Identifying populations for conservation on the basis of genetic markers. Biol. Conserv. 1998, 12, 844–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rohlf, F.J. tpsUtil, Version 1.74; State University of New York at Stony Brook: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  40. Albert, P.; Moureau, B.; Dommergues, J.L.; David, B. Differentiation at a microgeographical scale within two species of ground beetle, Carabus auronitens and C. nemoralis (Coleoptera, Carabidae): A geometrical morphometric approach. Zool. Scr. 2001, 30, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lemic, D.; Benítez, H.A.; Püschel, T.A.; Gašparić, H.V.; Šatvar, M.; Bažok, R. Ecological morphology of the sugar beet weevil Croatian populations: Evaluating the role of environmental conditions on body shape. Zool. Anz. 2016, 260, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rohlf, F.J. tpsDig, Version 2.30; Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  43. Klingenberg, C.P.; Barluenga, M.; Meyer, A. Shape analysis of symmetric structures: Quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution 2002, 56, 1909–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Benítez, H.A.; Püschel, T.A.; Lemic, D.; Čačija, M.; Kozina, A.; Bažok, R. Ecomorphological variation of the wireworm cephalic capsule: Studying the interaction of environment and geometric shape. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Klingenberg, C.P. MorphoJ: An integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2011, 11, 353–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Goodall, C. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 1991, 53, 285–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Klingenberg, C.P.; McIntyre, G.S. Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability: Analyzing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with Procrustes methods. Evolution 1998, 52, 1363–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Hajek, A.E.; Hurley, B.P.; Kenis, M.; Garnas, J.R.; Bush, S.J.; Wingfield, M.J.; Michael, J.; Van Lenteren, J.C.; Cock, M.J.W. Exotic biological control agents: A solution or contribution to arthropod invasions? Biol. Invasions 2016, 18, 953–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Benelli, G.; Jeffries, C.L.; Walker, T. Biological control of mosquito vectors: Past, present, and future. Insects 2016, 7, 4–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Kats, L.B.; Ferrer, R.P. Alien predators and amphibian declines: Review of two decades of science and the transition to conservation. Divers. Distrib. 2003, 9, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rupp, H.R. Adverse assessments of Gambusia affinis: An alternate view for mosquito control practitioners. J. Am. Mosq. Control. Assoc. 1996, 12, 155–159. [Google Scholar]
  52. Chambers, D.L. Quality control in mass rearing. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1977, 22, 289–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Quaglietti, B.; Tamisier, L.; Groussier, G.; Fleisch, A.; Le Goff, I.; Ris, N.; Kreiter, P.; Fauvergue, X.; Malausa, T. No inbreeding depression in laboratory-reared individuals of the parasitoid wasp Allotropa burrelli. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 964–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Beever, E.A.; O’Leary, J.; Mengelt, C.; West, J.M.; Julius, S.; Green, N.; Magness, D.; Petes, L.; Stein, B.; Nicotra, A.B.; et al. Improving conservation outcomes with a new paradigm for understanding species’ fundamental and realized adaptive capacity. Conser. Lett. 2016, 9, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Orlofske, J.M.; Baird, D.J. A geometric morphometric approach to establish body-shape trait criteria for aquatic insects. Freshw. Sci. 2014, 33, 978–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Gotthard, K.; Nylin, S. Adaptive plasticity and plasticity as an adaptation: A selective review of plasticity in animal morphology and life history. Oikos 1995, 74, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Smetana, A. Revision of the genus Hydrochara Berth. (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae). Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can. 1980, 112, 1–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Short, A.E. Phylogeny, evolution and classification of the giant water scavenger beetles (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae: Hydrophilini: Hydrophilina). Syst. Biodivers. 2010, 8, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Darılmaz, M.C.; Kıyak, S.; Short, A.E. Discovery of the water scavenger beetle genus Brownephilus Mouchamps in Turkey (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae, Hydrophilini. ZooKeys 2010, 53, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Short, A.E.; Fikáček, M. World catalogue of the Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera): Additions and corrections II (2006–2010). Acta Entomol. Mus. Natl. Pragae. 2011, 51, 83–122. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lee, S.H.; Lee, C.E.; Park, H.C. A taxonomy of the aquatic Hydrophilidae of South Korea (Coleoptera). Nat. Life 1988, 18, 79–91. [Google Scholar]
  62. Lee, S.H. Some additions to the Hydrophilidae of Korea (Coleoptera). Nat. Life 1990, 20, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lee, S.H.; Cho, Y.B.; Lee, C.E. Some addition to the Hydrophilidae of Korea II (Coleoptera). Nat. Life 1993, 23, 145–149. [Google Scholar]
  64. Jung, S.W.; Lee, D.H.; Ham, S.A.; Huh, J.M.; Hwang, J.M.; Bae, Y.J. Revised checklist of the Korean aquatic insects. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2011, 27, 37–52. [Google Scholar]
  65. National Institute of Biological Resources. National Species list of Korea. III. Insects (Hexapoda); Designzip: Incheon, Korea, 2019; pp. 224–225. [Google Scholar]
  66. Toussaint, E.F.; Bloom, D.; Short, A.E. Cretaceous West Gondwana vicariance shaped giant water scavenger beetle biogeography. J. Biogeogr. 2017, 44, 1952–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 12 05481 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of 21 sampling sites of natural Hydrochara affinis populations in South Korea. The map was modified from a version produced using ArcGIS 10.5 [27].
Figure 1. Map of 21 sampling sites of natural Hydrochara affinis populations in South Korea. The map was modified from a version produced using ArcGIS 10.5 [27].
Sustainability 12 05481 g001
Sustainability 12 05481 g002 550
Figure 2. Geometric morphometric analyses. (a) Morphological landmarks (N = 24) used for morphometric analysis, ventral view. (b) Canonical variate analysis of the four Hydrochara affinis populations. Scatter plots of first two canonical variate scores with 95% confidence ellipses.
Figure 2. Geometric morphometric analyses. (a) Morphological landmarks (N = 24) used for morphometric analysis, ventral view. (b) Canonical variate analysis of the four Hydrochara affinis populations. Scatter plots of first two canonical variate scores with 95% confidence ellipses.
Sustainability 12 05481 g002
Sustainability 12 05481 g003 550
Figure 3. Haplotype network of Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) sequences from Hydrochara affinis specimens collected from South Korea. Each line represents a single mutational step, irrespective of length. Circle area is proportional to the individual numbers found for the respective haplotype, and asterisks (*) indicate the haplotypes found in the laboratory population (STL).
Figure 3. Haplotype network of Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) sequences from Hydrochara affinis specimens collected from South Korea. Each line represents a single mutational step, irrespective of length. Circle area is proportional to the individual numbers found for the respective haplotype, and asterisks (*) indicate the haplotypes found in the laboratory population (STL).
Sustainability 12 05481 g003
Sustainability 12 05481 g004 550
Figure 4. Phylogenetic tree of the Hydrochara species based on Bayesian inference. The numbers indicate the Bayesian posterior probabilities and ML bootstrap values for the nodes, respectively. Branches for H. affinis (N = 82) and H. libera (N = 15) are collapsed at the species level, and the bold text indicates the sequences generated in the present study.
Figure 4. Phylogenetic tree of the Hydrochara species based on Bayesian inference. The numbers indicate the Bayesian posterior probabilities and ML bootstrap values for the nodes, respectively. Branches for H. affinis (N = 82) and H. libera (N = 15) are collapsed at the species level, and the bold text indicates the sequences generated in the present study.
Sustainability 12 05481 g004
Table
Table 1. Genetic diversity indices of the Hydrochara affinis and sampling locations.
Table 1. Genetic diversity indices of the Hydrochara affinis and sampling locations.
Site NrLocalitiesNNHhhrMPD (SD)π (SD)Tajima’s DFu’s Fs
ST137°10′16.7″ N, 128°12′12.9″ E1090.978 (0.054)3.7784.067 (2.214)0.005 (0.003)−0.816−4.318
ST237°08′25.7″ N, 128°13′54.4″ E881.000 (0.063)4.0005.286 (2.855)0.007 (0.004)−1.447−3.752
ST337°35′01.1″ N, 127°14′15.7″ E661.000 (0.096)3.3332.400 (1.510)0.003 (0.002)−0.496−3.851
ST437°33′04.1″ N, 127°57′10.3″ E210.000 (0.000)---00.000
ST537°30′11.0″ N, 126°45′57″ E111.000 (0.000)---00.000
ST637°14′46.0″ N, 127°28′07.4″ E221.000 (0.500)-4.000 (3.162)0.005 (0.006)00.000
ST735°20′43.0″ N, 127°50′20.0″ E221.000 (0.500)-4.000 (3.162)0.005 (0.006)00.000
ST837°46′01″ N, 128°53′12.0″ E111.000 (0.000)---01.386
ST935°54′54.2″ N, 128°36′01.7″ E321.000 (0.272)-2.000 (1.512)0.003 (0.002)01.386
ST1037°34′02.0″ N, 126°53′14.8″ E111.000 (0.000)---00.000
ST1135°48′48.2″ N, 126°24′26.4″ E111.000 (0.000)---00.000
ST1236°14′55.1″ N, 126°51′33.5″ E111.000 (0.000)---00.000
ST1336°50′30.0″ N, 126°11′48.9″ E111.000 (0.000)---0−0.693
ST1436°29′19.0″ N, 128°40′24.7″ E111.000 (0.000)---00.000
ST1538°01′57.4″ N, 127°04′33.4″ E221.000 (0.500)-3.000 (2.449)0.004 (0.004)00.000
ST1636°40′02.5″ N, 126°18′35.3″ E221.000 (0.500)-4.000 (3.162)0.005 (0.006)01.386
ST1736°26′10.5″ N, 126°23′47.0″ E111.000 (0.000)---00.000
ST1837°21′13.3″ N, 126°55′06.4″ E221.000 (0.500)-10.000 (7.416)0.013 (0.134)02.303
ST1937°21′50.8″ N, 127°54′21.7″ E970.833 (0.127)2.7702.889 (1.672)0.004 (0.002)−1.000−1.252
ST2037°14′46.2″ N, 127°28′07.1″ E540.900 (0.161)3.0001.600 (1.128)0.002 (0.002)−1.094−1.405
ST2137°06′04.8″ N, 127°56′24.2″ E221.000 (0.500)-4.000 (3.162)0.005 (0.006)01.386
STLLaboratory rearing19120.901 (0.059)3.1933.064 (1.667)0.004 (0.002)0.378−5.439
Total 82460.957 (0.013)-3.566 (1.831)0.005 (0.003)−2.068−26.129
N, Number of individuals; NH, Number of haplotype diversity; h, Haplotype diversity; hr, Haplotype richness; MPD, Mean no. pairwise differences; π, Nucleotide diversity.
Table
Table 2. Canonical variate analysis (below diagonal) and pairwise genetic differentiation (FST) based on the mtDNA COI sequences (above diagonal) for the natural (N = 3) and laboratory (N = 1) populations of H. affinis in South Korea. Procrustes distances and the respective p-values are given (*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01).
Table 2. Canonical variate analysis (below diagonal) and pairwise genetic differentiation (FST) based on the mtDNA COI sequences (above diagonal) for the natural (N = 3) and laboratory (N = 1) populations of H. affinis in South Korea. Procrustes distances and the respective p-values are given (*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01).
SitesST1ST3ST27STL
ST1
ST3
ST27
STL		-
0.0147
0.0136
0.0076		0.0021
-
0.0202 **
0.0162 *		0.0578
0.0841
-
0.0129		0.0811 **
0.1215 **
0.0655

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kang, J.H.; Lim, C.; Park, S.H.; Kim, W.G.; Sareein, N.; Bae, Y.J. Genetic and Morphologic Variation in a Potential Mosquito Biocontrol Agent, Hydrochara Affinis (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Sustainability 2020, 12, 5481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135481

AMA Style

Kang JH, Lim C, Park SH, Kim WG, Sareein N, Bae YJ. Genetic and Morphologic Variation in a Potential Mosquito Biocontrol Agent, Hydrochara Affinis (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Sustainability. 2020; 12(13):5481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135481

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kang, Ji Hyoun, Changseob Lim, Sung Hwan Park, Wang Gyu Kim, Nattawut Sareein, and Yeon Jae Bae. 2020. "Genetic and Morphologic Variation in a Potential Mosquito Biocontrol Agent, Hydrochara Affinis (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae)" Sustainability 12, no. 13: 5481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135481

APA Style

Kang, J. H., Lim, C., Park, S. H., Kim, W. G., Sareein, N., & Bae, Y. J. (2020). Genetic and Morphologic Variation in a Potential Mosquito Biocontrol Agent, Hydrochara Affinis (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Sustainability, 12(13), 5481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135481

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop