Wheat curl mite and dry bulb mite: untangling a taxonomic conundrum through a multidisciplinary approach

Abstract

Two economically important eriophyoid mites, Aceria tosichella (wheat curl mite; WCM) and Aceria tulipae (dry bulb mite; DBM), were frequently confounded in the world literature until the late 20th Century. Their morphological similarity and ambiguous data from plant‐transfer and virus‐transmission trials contributed to this confusion. Until recently, there was a general lack of knowledge about the existence of species complexes and it was not possible to accurately genotype tested mites. In the present study, two WCM genotypes of divergent host specificity (MT‐1 and MT‐2) and one DBM genotype were tested for the acceptance of Poaceae, Amarylidaceae, and Liliaceae species that were reported or suspected as hosts of WCM or DBM. The MT‐1 lineage colonized all tested plants. Onion‐ and garlic‐associated DBM populations did not colonize tulip and wild garlic, suggesting that host‐acceptance variability exists within A. tulipae s.l. Morphometric analysis did not discriminate closely‐related MT‐1 and MT‐2 genotypes but completely separated both WCM genotypes from DBM based on the larger overall body size of the latter. Three morphological traits combined to discriminate between the DBM and MT‐1 genotypes, both of which can infest Amarylidaceae bulbs. In total, these combined DNA sequence, host‐acceptance, morphometrical results unambiguously separated two WCM and one DBM genotypes. Similar studies on additional lineages of both WCM and DBM should ultimately dispel previous taxonomic confusion between these two species. © 2013 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2014, 111, 421–436.

Two Birch Species Demonstrate Opposite Latitudinal Patterns in Infestation by Gall-Making Mites in Northern Europe

“…Indeed, the tiny size and structural simplicity of eriophyoid mites hinder their taxonomic identification and differentiation between morphologically related species [46]. Recently, advents in DNA barcoding have been successfully employed in studies of eriophyoid mites and led to discovery of many morphologically cryptic species with inter-species divergence in mtDNA COI ranging from 11% to 28% [36, 47]. Genetic analyses showed that white and red felt galls contained different genotypes of A .…”

Basal divergence of Eriophyoidea (Acariformes, Eupodina) inferred from combined partial COI and 28S gene sequences and CLSM genital anatomy

“…Primers for PCR amplification and sequencing are shown in Table 2 (Skoracka and Dabert 2010;Skoracka et al 2012Skoracka et al , 2014Bouneb et al 2014) were added to the original dataset (Abacarus hystrix, gi_237513198; Aceria eximia, gi_126009698; Aceria tosichella, gi_337271927; Aceria tulipae, gi_237513230; Aculodes mckenziei, gi_237513226; Trisetacus juniperinus sensu K., gi_403233994).…”

Phytophagous mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) recorded from Svalbard, including the description of a new species

“…This DNA marker has been utilized successfully in phylogenetic studies at the species level and has been proposed as a DNA bar code for taxonomic differentiation of animal species (Sonnenberg et al 2007). This DNA fragment has also been successfully applied to the delimitation of species (including cryptic species) in eriophyoid mites (e.g., Skoracka et al 2013Skoracka et al , 2014Lewandowski et al 2014). No variability between obtained sequences was detected.…”