Publication: Evidence of weak genetic structure and recent gene flow between Bactrocera dorsalis s.s. and B. papayae, across Southern Thailand and West Malaysia, supporting a single target pest for SIT applications
Issued Date
2014
Resource Type
Language
eng
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
BioMed Central
Bibliographic Citation
BMC Genetics. Vol. 15, (2014), 70
Suggested Citation
Nidchaya Aketarawong, Siriwan Isasawin, Sujinda Thanaphum Evidence of weak genetic structure and recent gene flow between Bactrocera dorsalis s.s. and B. papayae, across Southern Thailand and West Malaysia, supporting a single target pest for SIT applications. BMC Genetics. Vol. 15, (2014), 70. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-15-70 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/2733
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Evidence of weak genetic structure and recent gene flow between Bactrocera dorsalis s.s. and B. papayae, across Southern Thailand and West Malaysia, supporting a single target pest for SIT applications
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Bactrocera dorsalis s.s. (Hendel) and B. papayae Drew & Hancock, are invasive pests belonging to the
B. dorsalis complex. Their species status, based on morphology, is sometimes arguable. Consequently, the existence
of cryptic species and/or population isolation may decrease the effectiveness of the sterile insect technique (SIT)
due to an unknown degree of sexual isolation between released sterile flies and wild counterparts. To evaluate
the genetic relationship and current demography in wild populations for guiding the application of area-wide
integrated pest management using SIT, seven microsatellite-derived markers from B. dorsalis s.s. and another five
from B. papayae were used for surveying intra- and inter-specific variation, population structure, and recent
migration among sympatric and allopatric populations of the two morphological forms across Southern Thailand
and West Malaysia.
Results: Basic genetic variations were not significantly different among forms, populations, and geographical areas
(P > 0.05). Nonetheless, two sets of microsatellite markers showed significantly different levels of polymorphisms.
Genetic differentiation between intra- and inter-specific differences was significant, but low. Seventeen populations
revealed three hypothetical genetic clusters (K = 3) regardless of forms and geographical areas. The genetic structure of
sympatric populations slightly changed during the different years of collection. Recent gene flow (m ≥ 0.10) was
frequently detected whether samples were sympatric or allopatric. Ninety-five of 379 individuals distributed across the
given area were designated as recent migrants or of admixed ancestry. As a consequence of substantial migration, no
significant correlation between genetic and geographic distances was detected (R2 = 0.056, P = 0.650).
Conclusions: According to the 12 microsatellite variations, weak population structure and recent gene flow suggest
that there is no status for cryptic species between B. dorsalis s.s. and B. papayae forms in Southern Thailand and West
Malaysia. Both forms can be treated as a single target pest for the SIT program in an area-wide sense. Additionally, the
result of species identification based on molecular data and morphological character are not congruent. The use of
independent, multiple approaches in the characterization of the target population may ensure the effectiveness and
feasibility of SIT-based control in the target area.