Invasion success of a scarab beetle within its native range: host range expansion versus host-shift

Lefort, Marie-Caroline; Boyer, Stéphane; Romans, Saïana De; Glare, Travis R.; Armstrong, Karen; Worner, Susan P.

doi:10.7717/peerj.262

Cited by 32 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this beetle, fitness was lowered when larval beetles were fed tissue of nonnatal hosts, indicating the potential for immigrant inviability to isolate beetles (Lefort et al. ), but no experiments have yet been performed to exclude the possibility of developmental plasticity as an explanation, so for the moment this system cannot be classified as having definitive evidence of host‐associated genetic structure.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the particular role of host shifts in initiating insect speciation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion that shifts to new hosts can initiate insect speciation is more than 150 years old, yet widespread conflation with paradigms of sympatric speciation has led to confusion about how much support exists for this hypothesis. Here, we review 85 insect systems and evaluate the relationship between host shifting, reproductive isolation, and speciation. We sort insects into five categories: (1) systems in which a host shift has initiated speciation; (2) systems in which a host shift has made a contribution to speciation; (3) systems in which a host shift has caused the evolution of new reproductive isolating barriers; (4) systems with host-associated genetic differences; and (5) systems with no evidence of host-associated genetic differences. We find host-associated genetic structure in 65 systems, 43 of which show that host shifts have resulted in the evolution of new reproductive barriers. Twenty-six of the latter also support a role for host shifts in speciation, including eight studies that definitively support the hypothesis that a host shift has initiated speciation. While this review is agnostic as to the fraction of all insect speciation events to which host shifts have contributed, it clarifies that host shifts absolutely can and do initiate speciation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the particular role of host shifts in initiating insect speciation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tsuchida et al 2004, Hammer andBowers 2015). It is also known that host shifts can sometimes lead to a phytophagous insect becoming an invasive species (Lefort et al 2014).…”

Section: Literature Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

A response to Pennisi - “How do gut microbiomes help herbivores”, a hint into next-generation biocontrol solutions

Lefort¹,

Boyer²,

Glare³

2017

ReEco

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a world where invasive invertebrate species can significantly compromise food security and where a dwindling range of synthetic pesticides remains our principal line of defence, testing a new invasion ecology hypothesis and understanding what makes a phytophagous insect invasive should be regarded as high priority research. Recent advances in microbiology strongly support the crucial and effective role of the gut microbiome in insect growth, development and, most importantly, environmental adaptation to their host plants. On the basis of recent literature, and following Elizabeth Pennisi's article published in the journal Science, we hypothesis that gut microbiome could be a critical determinant of invasion success in phytophagous insects, and that the uncovering of common traits in the gut microbiome of invasive insects, a "gut microbiome invasiveness signature", would open new avenues of research towards nextgeneration biocontrol solutions.

show abstract

“…Additionally, the test subject may be required to be alive for further testing or return to their natural habitat. If further tests involve capturing an animal for a laboratory experiment [100] or for translocation [101], then the effects of capturing and holding the organisms for DNA sampling are of less concern as individuals will need to be captured for these experiments anyway. However, stressful events can have a cumulative effect [102], therefore the potential for further exacerbation of stress by DNA sampling should be carefully considered.…”

Section: When Is Non-disruptive Dna Required or Preferred?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, many cryptic species complexes can only be elucidated genetically [104]. Laboratory-based behavioural or fitness studies involving cryptic or monomorphic species may therefore require DNA sexing or species identification of individuals before conducting research on them [100,105] to ensure a balance of sex or species across different treatments. Even when species identification is not an issue, the organisms being studied may comprise different morphocryptic genotypes [105] that must be determined prior to experimentation in a way that does not affect their fitness or behaviour.…”

Section: Laboratory-based Experimentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blood, sweat and tears: a review of non-invasive DNA sampling

Lefort

Cruickshank

Descovich

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of DNA data is ubiquitous across animal sciences. DNA may be obtained from an organism for a myriad of reasons including identification and distinction between cryptic species, sex identification, comparisons of different morphocryptic genotypes or assessments of relatedness between organisms prior to a behavioural study. DNA should be obtained while minimizing the impact on the fitness, behaviour or welfare of the subject being tested, as this can bias experimental results and cause long-lasting effects on wild animals. Furthermore, minimizing impact on experimental animals is a key Refinement principle within the ‘3Rs’ framework which aims to ensure that animal welfare during experimentation is optimised. The term ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’ has been defined to indicate collection methods that do not require capture or cause disturbance to the animal, including any effects on behaviour or fitness. In practice this is not always the case, as the term ‘non-invasive’ is commonly used in the literature to describe studies where animals are restrained or subjected to aversive procedures. We reviewed the non-invasive DNA sampling literature for the past six years (380 papers published in 2013-2018) and uncovered the existence of a significant gap between the current use of this terminology (i.e. ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’) and its original definition. We show that 58% of the reviewed papers did not comply with the original definition. We discuss the main experimental and ethical issues surrounding the potential confusion or misuse of the phrase ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’ in the current literature and provide potential solutions. In addition, we introduce the terms ‘non-disruptive’ and ‘minimally disruptive’ DNA sampling, to indicate methods that eliminate or minimise impacts not on the physical integrity/structure of the animal, but on its behaviour, fitness and welfare, which in the literature reviewed corresponds to the situation for which an accurate term is clearly missing. Furthermore, we outline when these methods are appropriate to use.

show abstract

Invasion success of a scarab beetle within its native range: host range expansion versus host-shift

Cited by 32 publications

References 38 publications

Revisiting the particular role of host shifts in initiating insect speciation

Revisiting the particular role of host shifts in initiating insect speciation

A response to Pennisi - “How do gut microbiomes help herbivores”, a hint into next-generation biocontrol solutions

Blood, sweat and tears: a review of non-invasive DNA sampling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About