Adult and larval associations of the alpine stonefly genus Riekoperla McLellan (Plecoptera:Gripopterygidae) using mitochondrial DNA

Abstract

The current taxonomic understanding of the genus Riekoperla McLellan, 1971 (Gripopterygidae) is poor, with 15 of the 28 species and subspecies having unknown or uncertain larval associations. Sequences of a 657 bp fragment from the mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (CO1) were obtained from 122 specimens of 13 species collected throughout the alpine areas of New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. Of these, sequence data associated adults and larvae for the following 10 species: R. alpina McLellan, 1971, R. cf. intermedia, R. compressa Theischinger, 1985, R. hynesorum Theischinger, 1985, R. karki McLellan, 1971, R. montana Theischinger, 1985, R. reticulata (Kimmins, 1951), R. rugosa (Kimmins, 1951), R. trapeza Theischinger, 1985, and R. tuberculata McLellan, 1971. Adults of R. intermedia Theischinger, 1985, R. triloba triloba McLellan, 1971 and R. williamsi McLellan, 1971 were sequenced but no larvae were associated with them. The 13 species were reciprocally monophyletic and had minimum interspecific sequence divergences ranging from 7.2–19.5%, higher than the maximum intraspecific sequence divergences (0.6–5.8%). The combination of morphology and molecular data enabled rapid life stage association for alpine Riekoperla species and this method should be used more frequently for other environmentally significant aquatic insects.

Genetic diversity and dispersal potential of the stoneflyDinocras cephalotesin a central European low mountain range

“…Other plecopteran taxa analyzed so far have shown intraspecific COI distances below and above the typical barcoding gap threshold of 2 to 3% distance (Sweeney et al 2011, Zhou et al 2009, 2010, with intraspecific distances of up to 5.8% (Mynott et al 2011). These studies relied only on COI data, so the possibility that they were dealing with cryptic species could not be ruled out.…”

A DNA Barcode Library for North American Ephemeroptera: Progress and Prospects

“…DNA barcoding has the further advantage that identification success extends across all life stages, allowing the association of immatures with adults [4], [5]. Its capacity to identify all life stages is particularly important for aquatic ecology and biological monitoring (biomonitoring) of water quality because the aquatic larvae are usually the life stage studied [6].…”

Comprehensive DNA barcodes for species identification and discovery of cryptic diversity in mayfly larvae from South Korea: Implications for freshwater ecosystem biomonitoring

“…DNA barcoding of diverse animal taxa, the analysis using a short segment of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (COI) gene, has been widely used as a valuable tool for species identification, delimitation, and discovery of new species during the last few decades (Hebert et al 2003(Hebert et al , 2010Taylor & Harris 2012). In particular, the DNA barcode system has several applicational advantages for taxonomic identification including the association of juveniles, where life stages cannot be identified based on morphology, with corresponding adults (Zhou et al 2007;Mynott et al 2011). Its capacity for the identification of all life stages of organisms is especially important for ecology and biomonitoring of aquatic ecosystems because many studies have been performed on the aquatic insect larvae, although their species identification is difficult, often even impossible (Rosenberg & Resh 1993;Pfrender et al 2010;Baird & Sweeney 2011, 2012.…”

“…Its capacity for the identification of all life stages of organisms is especially important for ecology and biomonitoring of aquatic ecosystems because many studies have been performed on the aquatic insect larvae, although their species identification is difficult, often even impossible (Rosenberg & Resh 1993;Pfrender et al 2010;Baird & Sweeney 2011, 2012. Therefore, most taxonomical evaluation of the life stages of insect young remains poorly understood because most aquatic insects have been classified based on morphology of adult males (Zhou et al 2007;Mynott et al 2011). The species identification of larvae is more difficult since most of morphological structures such as gills, legs, and caudal filaments can be easily damaged and lost, especially in mayflies (Ephemeroptera) (Ball et al 2005;Hajibabaei et al 2006b;Webb et al 2012).…”