Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:38:09.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MULTIPLE INTRODUCTIONS OF THE FORFICULA AURICULARIA SPECIES COMPLEX (DERMAPTERA: FORFICULIDAE) IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Stéphanie Guillet ,
Nathalie Josselin  and
Michel Vancassel
Stéphanie Guillet*
Affiliation:
CNRS UMR 6553 EcoBio, Bat. 14, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes Cedex 02, France
Nathalie Josselin
Affiliation:
CNRS UMR 6553 EcoBio, Bat. 14, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes Cedex 02, France
Michel Vancassel
Affiliation:
CNRS UMR 6553 EcoBio, Bat. 14, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes Cedex 02, France
*
1 Author to whom all corresponding should be addressed. (E-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A survey of nine populations of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia L., species complex from eastern North America revealed the presence of the two sibling species recently identified as species A and B. A mitochondrial analysis, based on restriction polymorphism observed on the 16S rRNA and the cytochrome oxydase regions, proved to be a rapid method to identify and distinguish these two species. Furthermore, consistency between these mitochondrial data and a biological diagnosis, based on the dates and number of oviposition periods in each population, revealed that species A and B occupy different habitats. These observations are consistent with the hypothesis of multiple introductions of the two species on the Atlantic coast of North America, followed by a selection of the most adapted species to each habitat.

Résumé

L’étude de neuf populations du complexe d’espèces de perce-oreille Européen, Forficula auricularia L., localisées à l’est de l’Amérique du Nord, a révélé la présence de deux espèces jumelles récemment identifiées en tant qu’espèce A et espèce B. Une analyse mitochondriale, basée sur le polymorphisme de restriction observé pour les régions 16S rRNA et cytochrome oxydase, a permis d’identifier et de distinguer rapidement ces deux espèces. De plus, la concordance de ces données mitochondriales avec une diagnose biologique basée sur les dates et le nombre de pontes dans chaque population a révélé que les espèces A et B occupent des habitats différents. Ces observations concordent avec l’hypothèse selon laquelle les deux espèces auraient été introduites à de multiples reprises sur la côte Atlantique de l’Amérique du Nord, l’espèce la mieux adaptée ayant été sélectionnée dans chaque habitat.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 132 , Issue 1 , February 2000 , pp. 49 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beall, G. 1932. The life history and behaviour of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia L., in British Columbia. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 29: 28–43Google Scholar
Clary, D.O., Wolstenholme, D.R. 1985. The mitochondrial DNA molecule of Drosophila yakuba: nucleotide sequence, gene organisation, and genetic code. Journal of Molecular Evolution 22: 252–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coyne, F.S. 1928. The European earwig. Washington State Horticultural Association Proceedings 24: 185–8Google Scholar
Crumb, S.E., Eide, P.M., Bonn, A.E. 1941. The European earwig. US Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 766: 1–76Google Scholar
DeBruijn, M.H.L. 1983. Drosophila melanogaster mitochondrial DNA, a novel organization and genetic code. Nature (London) 304: 234–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, B.B. 1924. The European earwig. Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 207: 1–29Google Scholar
Glaser, R.W. 1914. Forficula auricularia in Rhode Island. Psyche 21: 157–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, D.G., Sharp, P.M. 1988. Clustal: a package for performing multiple sequence alignments on a microcomputer. Gene 73: 237–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, D.W. 1917. The European earwig and its control. US Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 566: 1–12Google Scholar
Lamb, R.J., Wellington, W.G. 1974. Techniques for studying the behavior and ecology of European earwig, Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae). The Canadian Entomologist 106: 881–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J., Wellington, W.G. 1975. Life history and population characteristics of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), at Vancouver, British Columbia. The Canadian Entomologist 107: 819–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langston, R.L., Powell, J.A. 1975. The earwigs of California (Order Dermaptera). Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 20: 1–25Google Scholar
McPheronm, B.A., Han, H. 1997. Phylogenetic analysis of North American Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae) and related genera using mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 7: 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mote, D.C. 1931. The introduction of the Tachinid parasites of the European earwig in Oregon. Journal of Economic Entomology 24: 948–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, C., Frati, F., Beckenbach, A., Crespi, B., Liu, H., Flook, P. 1994. Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 87: 651–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stene, A.E. 1934. The European earwig as a pest in Rhode Island. Journal of Economic Entomology 27: 566–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vancassel, M. 1984. Plasticity and adaptative radiation of Dermapteran parental behavior: results and perspectives. Advances in the Study of Behavior 14: 51–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickery, V.R., Kevan, DKMcE. 1983. A monograph of the orthopteroid insects of Canada and adjacent regions. Memoir of the Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory 13(1): 1–679; 13(2): 681–1462Google Scholar
Vogler, A.P., Pearson, D.L. 1996. A molecular phylogeny of the tiger beetles (Cicindelidae): congruence of mitochondrial and nuclear rDNA data sets. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 6: 321–38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weyrauch, W.K. 1929. Experimentelle analyse der Brutpflege des Ohrwürmes Forficula auricularia L. Biologisches Zentrablatte 49: 543–58Google Scholar
Wirth, T., Le Guellec, R., Vancassel, M., and Veuille, M. 1998. Molecular and reproductive characterisation of sibling species in the European earwig (Forficula auricularia). Evolution 52: 260–5Google ScholarPubMed
Xiong, B., Kocher, T.D. 1993. Phylogeny of sibling species of Simulium venustum and S. verecundum (Diptera: Simuliidae) based on sequences of the mitochondrial large subunit rRNA gene. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 3: 293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar