Evolutionary Dynamics of Host-Plant Use in a Genus of Leaf-Mining Moths

Abstract

We used nuclear 28S rDNA sequence data to estimate the phylogeny of 77 leaf-mining Phyllonorycter (Gracillariidae) moth species, including all 55 British species, feeding on 44 different plant genera. There was strong support for both the monophyly of Phyllonorycter and the placement of the genus Cameraria as its sister group. Host-plant use was mapped onto the moth phylogeny and investigated statistically in several ways. First, we show that the estimated level of cospeciation between leaf miners and their host plants is not greater than expected by chance, despite the physical intimacy of the association. Nevertheless, the pattern of host-plant use is far from random, with closely related Phyllonorycter species generally feeding on closely related plants. However, although Phyllonorycter species from a given host plant tend to form distinct clades, there is also statistical support for multiple independent colonizations of some host-plant taxa (e.g. the order Rosales and the genus Corylus). Despite numerous host shifts, most Phyllonorycter species feed on trees and the few species that attack shrubs or herbs have mostly acquired these habits independently. There is also limited evidence that host shifts to herbs are more likely from shrubs than from trees. Similarly, most species mine the lower surface of leaves but the few upper-surface miners have each evolved the habit independently. Consequently, these shifts to new adaptive zones have not led to substantial radiations.

First host plant records for Iridopsis hausmanni Vargas (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) in the coastal valleys of northern Chile

“…Among phytophagous insects it is frequently true that taxonomically related species are associated with taxonomically related host plants, although some exceptions have been also reported (Erlich & Raven 1964;Lopez-Vaamonde et al 2003;Ohshima & Yoshizawa 2006). In the present case, differing from the host plant pattern reported for the supposed closely related species, larvae of I. hausmanni were associated with Anacardiaceae and strongly rejected Fabaceae.…”

Are dominant plant species more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects? A case study at Saihanwula Nature Reserve, China

“…High incidences and abundances of leafminers on dominant plants have been demonstrated at global, regional, and community levels (Dai et al., 2017). For example, the highest reported abundance and richness values of leaf‐mining insects are found for members of Fagaceae and Myrtaceae (i.e., the most dominant plant families in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, respectively) (Bairstow, Clarke, McGeoch, & Andrew, 2010; Claridge & Wilson, 1982; Dai, Xu, & Cai, 2014; Dai, Xu, & Ding, 2013; Faeth & Mopper, 1981; Ishida, Hattori, & Kimura, 2004; Kollár & Hrubík, 2009; Lopez‐Vaamonde, Godfray, & Cook, 2003; Nakamura, Hattori, Ishida, Sato, & Kimura, 2008; Opler & Davis, 1981; Sato, 1991; Sinclair & Hughes, 2008a,b). The variation in leafminer species richness among different host plants might be described by the species–area (i.e., leafminer species to host plant area) or species–apparency (i.e., leafminer species to host plant apparency) relationship (Dai et al., 2017; MacArthur & Wilson, 1967; Opler, 1974).…”

“…However, the unapparent relatives of apparent hosts might be utilized by leafminers due to the chemical similarities among phylogenetically closed plants (Dai et al., 2017). Therefore, the effects of plant phylogeny on the incidence of leafminers should be also considered (Claridge & Wilson, 1982; Dai et al., 2017; Godfray, 1984; Lawton & Price, 1979; Lopez‐Vaamonde et al., 2003). …”

Analysis of tissue dependent DNA yield for optimal sampling of micro-moths in large-scale biodiversity surveys

“…Over recent decades, molecular methods have complemented traditional comparative morphology and taxonomic classification of micro-moths (Nieukerken et al, in press). Indeed, an increasing number of DNA-based studies on smaller moths have recently been published in the fields of evolutionary biology (Lopez-Vaamonde et al, 2003Kawakita et al, 2004;Bucheli & Wenzel, 2005;Pellmyr et al, 2006;Schmitz et al, 2007;Kawahara et al, 2011), molecular ecology (Mari Mena et al, 2008;Valade et al, 2009), and in clarifications of complicated cases in alphataxonomy such as cryptic differentiation and/or species race formation (Kaila & Ståhls, 2006;Ohshima, 2008;Schmitz et al, 2008).…”