Evolutionary Ecology

, 22:607 | Cite as

Reproductive barriers between populations of the cereal rust mite Abacarus hystrix confirm their host specialization

Original Paper


Recent studies have shown that certain host populations of the cereal rust mite Abacarus hystrix are highly specialized in their host use and it is likely that reproductive isolation exists between them. Here I verified this expectation by testing for reproductive barriers between ryegrass and quackgrass populations of A. hystrix. I performed reciprocal crosses between individuals from both populations and observed results of crosses. Leaves of the three grass species, ryegrass, quackgrass and wheat, were used as mating arenas. I used two criteria to determine reproductive barriers between strains: the proportion of female progeny and viability of progeny. If studied populations of this haplodiploid species are reproductively isolated a male-biased sex ratio and/or hybrid progeny of reduced viability would be expected. I found that in the presence of quackgrass and ryegrass pre-zygotic barriers between studied populations exists. On wheat I observed asymmetry in reproductive barriers. Between females from quackgrass and males from ryegrass a pre-zygotic barrier existed (only males obtained). However, the opposite reciprocal cross (females from ryegrass and males from quackgrass) produced progeny of both sexes. A male-biased sex ratio and low adult emergence suggests that post-zygotic mechanisms acted here. Low viability of progeny obtained from crosses in which females from ryegrass were engaged suggests that the origin of the female nymph acted as a predictor of hybrid inviability. The pattern of sterility observed in the cereal rust mite indicates that in the presence of three hosts (ryegrass, quackgrass and wheat) pre- and post-zygotic reproductive barriers between quackgrass and ryegrass populations of this mite exist. In addition to host fidelity (which acts as pre-zygotic barrier) there are post-zygotic barriers to gene flow.


Acari Eriophyidae Hybrids Reproductive isolation Host races Asymmetric gene flow 



I thank Lechosław Kuczyński (AMU, Poland), Brian Rector (USDA-ARS-EBCL, Montpellier) and anonymous referees for helpful and valuable remarks on the manuscript. The study was supported by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research (grant no. 3P04C03825).


  1. Amrine J, Stasny TA (1994) Catalog of the Eriophyoidea (Acarina, Prostigmata) of the world. Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton NH, Hewitt GM (1985) Analysis of hybrid zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:113–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlocher SH, Feder JL (2002) Sympatric speciation in phytophagous insects: moving beyond controversy? Annu Rev Entomol 47:773–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bush GL (1969) Sympatric host race formation and speciation in frugivorous flies of the genus Rhagoletis (Diptera, Tephritidae). Evolution 23:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapman GP (2002) The biology of grasses. CABI Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Craig TP, Itami JK, Abrahamson WG, Horner JD (1993) Behavioral evidence for host-race formation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution 47:1696–1710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diehl SR, Bush GL (1989) The role of habitat preference in adaptation and speciation. In: Otte D, Endler JA (eds) Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp 345–365Google Scholar
  8. Dobzanskhy T (1970) Genetics of the evolutionary process. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Dres M, Mallet J (2002) Host races in plant-feeding insects and their importance in sympatric speciation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 357:471–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Emelianov I, Mallet J, Baltensweiler W (1995) Genetic differentiation in Zeiraphera diniana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae, the larch budmoth): polymorphism, host races or sibling species. Heredity 75:416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emelianov I, Marec F, Mallet J (2004) Genomic evidence for divergence with gene flow in host races of the larch budmoth. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feder JL, Opp S, Wlazlo B, Reynolds K, Go W, Spisak S (1994) Host fidelity is an effective pre-mating barrier between sympatric races of the apple maggot fly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 91:7990–7994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forister ML (2004) Oviposition preference and larval performance within a diverging lineage of lycaenid butterflies. Ecol Entomol 29:264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frost WE, Ridland PM (1996) Grasses. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) Eriophyoid mites—their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Funk DJ, Filchak KE, Feder JL (2002) Herbivorous insects: model systems for the comparative study of speciation ecology. Genetica 116:251–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helle W, Wysoki M (1996) Arrhenotokous parthenogenesis. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) Eriophyoid mites—their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 169–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Insightful Corporation (2005) S-PLUS 7.0 for windows professional edition. Insightful Corporation, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson PA, Hoppensteadt FC, Smith JJ, Bush GL (1996) Conditions for sympatric speciation: a diploid model incorporating habitat fidelity and non-habitat assortative mating. Evol Ecol 10:187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelly JK, Noor MAF 1996. Speciation by reinforcement: a model derived from studies of Drosophila. Genetics 143:1485–1497PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitter C, Farrell B, Weigmann B (1988) The phylogenetic study of adaptive zones: has phytophagy promoted insect diversification? Am Nat 132:107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mopper S (1996) Adaptive genetic structure in phytophagous insect populations. Tree 11:235–238Google Scholar
  23. Nault LR, Styer WE (1969) The dispersal of Aceria tulipae and three other grass-infesting eriophyid mites in Ohio. Ann Entomol Soc Am 62:1446–1455Google Scholar
  24. Nice CC, Fordyce JA, Shapiro AM, Ffrench-Constant R (2002) Lack of evidence for reproductive isolation among ecologically specialised lycaenid butterflies. Ecol Entomol 27:702–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nishimura S, Hinomoto N, Takafuji A (2005) Gene flow and spatio-temporal genetic variation among sympatric populations of Tetranychus kanzawai (Acari: Tetranychidae) occurring on different host plants, as estimated by microsatellite gene diversity. Exp Appl Acarol 35:59–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nosil P (2007) Divergent host plant adaptation and reproductive isolation between ecotypes of Timema cristinae walking sticks. Am Nat 169:151–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oldfield GN (1996) Diversity and host plant specificity. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) Eriophyoid mites—their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oldfield GN, Michalska K (1996) Spermatophore deposition, mating behaviour and population mating structure. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) Eriophyoid mites—their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oldfield GN, Proeseler G (1996) Eriophyoid mites as vectors of plant pathogens. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) Eriophyoid mites—their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rice WR (1987) Speciation via habitat specialization: the evolution of reproductive isolation as correlated character. Evol Ecol 1:301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rundle HD, Whitlock M (2001) A genetic interpretation of ecologically dependent isolation. Evolution 55:198–201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sabelis MW, Bruin J (1996) Evolutionary ecology: life history patterns, food plant choice and dispersal. In: Lindquist EE, Sabelis MW, Bruin J (eds) Eriophyoid mites—their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 329–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schluter D (2001) Ecology and the origin of species. Trends Ecol Evol 16:372–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Skoracka A, Kuczyński L (2004) Demography of the cereal rust mite Abacarus hystrix (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on quack grass. Exp Appl Acarol 32:231–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Skoracka A, Kuczyński L (2006a) Is the cereal rust mite, Abacarus hystrix really a generalist?—testing colonization performance on novel hosts. Exp Appl Acarol 38:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skoracka A, Kuczyński L (2006b) Host related differences in the development and reproduction of the cereal rust mite, Abacarus hystrix (Acari: Eriophyidae) in Poland. Int J Acarol 32:394–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Skoracka A, Kuczyński L, Magowski W (2002) Morphological variation in different host populations of Abacarus hystrix (Nalepa, 1896) (Acari: Prostigmata: Eriophyoidea). Exp Appl Acarol 26:187–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Skoracka A, Kuczyński L, Rector B (2007) Divergent host-acceptance behavior suggests host specialization in populations of the polyphagous mite Abacarus hystrix (Nalepa) (Acari: Prostigmata: Eriophyidae). Environ Entomol (in press)Google Scholar
  39. Strong DR, Lawton JH, Southwood TRE (1984) Insects on plants—community patterns and mechanisms. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Via S (1990) Ecological genetics and host adaptation in herbivorous insects: the experimental study of evolution in natural and agricultural systems. Annu Rev Entomol 35:421–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Via S (1991) The genetic structure of host plant adaptation in a spatial patchwork: demographic variability among reciprocally transplanted pea aphid clones. Evolution 45:827–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Via S (1999) Reproductive isolation between sympatric races of pea aphids. I. Gene flow restriction and habitat choice. Evolution 53:1446–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Virdee SR, Hewitt MH (1994) Clines for hybrid dysfunction in a grasshopper hybrid zone. Evolution 48:392–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walsh BD (1864) On phytophagic varieties and phytophagic species. Proc Entomol Soc Phil 3:403–430Google Scholar
  45. Waring GL, Abrahamson WG, Howard DJ (1990) Genetic differentiation among host-associated populations of the gallmaker Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera, Tephritidae). Evolution 44:1648–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wu C, Beckenbach AT (1983) Evidence for extensive genetic differentiation between the sex-ratio and the standard arrangement of Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis and identification of hybrid sterility factors. Genetics 105:71–86PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Taxonomy and Ecology, Institute of Environmental BiologyAdam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznanPoland

Personalised recommendations