Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:20:04.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying the geographic origins of invasive Megathyrsus maximus in the United States using molecular data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2022

John F. Gaskin Open the ORCID record for John F. Gaskin [Opens in a new window] ,
John A. Goolsby Open the ORCID record for John A. Goolsby [Opens in a new window] ,
Marie-Claude Bon Open the ORCID record for Marie-Claude Bon [Opens in a new window] ,
Massimo Cristofaro Open the ORCID record for Massimo Cristofaro [Opens in a new window]  and
Paul-André Calatayud Open the ORCID record for Paul-André Calatayud [Opens in a new window]
John F. Gaskin*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Sidney, MT, USA
John A. Goolsby
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Edinburg, TX, USA
Marie-Claude Bon
Affiliation:
European Biological Control Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Montferrier le Lez, France
Massimo Cristofaro
Affiliation:
Biotechnology and Biological Control Agency (BBCA onlus), Rome, Italy
Paul-André Calatayud
Affiliation:
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Nairobi, Kenya; IRD, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, UMR Évolution, Génomes, Comportement et Écologie, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
*
Author for correspondence: John F. Gaskin, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Sidney, MT59270. (Email: john.gaskin@usda.gov)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Megathyrsus maximus is nonnative in the neotropics, with a tall form that is commonly used as a forage grass and a smaller-statured form that is considered invasive in south Texas, USA. Biological control researchers are challenged to find an agent that will attack the short form, but not the desirable tall form in other parts of the neotropics. We conducted molecular analyses on 155 Megathyrsus maximus samples from its native range in Africa and compared them with U.S. short-form samples to help determine the geographic origins of its invasion. We found eight distinct genotypes in 34 short-form samples from Texas and Florida, USA. The highest genetic similarity of invasive samples was with plants from South Africa, while highest matches for the desirable tall form were from Kenya, Uganda, Ivory Coast, and Zambia. Ongoing biological control agent exploration and research has found agents from Kenya that are associated with an M. maximus genotype not well matched to the invasive short form, thus leading to a lack of rearing success. Two eriophyoid mite agents from the genetic match locality in South Africa have been evaluated but are not sufficiently host specific, as they develop on both the short and tall forms. Additional exploration is needed at the genetic match populations in South Africa to discover and evaluate potential biological control agents for the invasive form of M. maximus.

Keywords

AFLPbiological controlcpDNA sequencingGuineagrassUrochloa maxima
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 67 - 71
Check for updates
Creative Commons
This is a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America.
Copyright
© United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 2022

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Marie Jasieniuk, University of California, Davis

References

Bon, MC, Goolsby, J, Mercadier, G, Le Bourgeois, T, Poilecot, P, Jeanneau, M, Kirk, A (2011) What do chloroplast sequences tell us about the identity of Guinea grass, an invasive Poaceae in the southern United States? Page 322 in Proceedings of the XIII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, September 11–16, 2011, Waikoloa, USA. Wu Y, Johnson T, Sing S, Raghu S, Wheeler G, Pratt P, Warner K, Center T, Goolsby J, Reardon R, eds. Honolulu; HI: Forest Health Technology Enterprise TeamGoogle Scholar
Burdon, JJ, Groves, RH, Cullen, JM (1981) The impact of biological control on the distribution and abundance of Chondrilla juncea in south-eastern Australia. J Appl Ecol 18:18957–96610.2307/2402385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, GW, Millot, JC, Monson, WG (1973) Breeding procedures for Panicum maximum Jacq. suggested by plant variability and mode of reproduction. Crop Sci 13:717–720 10.2135/cropsci1973.0011183X001300060038xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CABI] Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (2021) Datasheet: Megathyrsus maximus (Guinea grass). https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/38666. Accessed: October 10, 2021Google Scholar
Clayton, WD, Renvoize, SA (1982) Graminae (Part 3). Pages 1–898 in Polhill, RM, ed. Flora of Tropical East Africa. Rotterdam: Balkema Google Scholar
Collins, AR, Müller-Schärer, H (2012) Influence of plant phenostage and ploidy level on oviposition and feeding of two specialist herbivores of spotted knapweed, Centaurea stoebe . Biol Control 60:148–153 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2011.10.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, BG, Pengelly, BC, Brown, SD, Donnelly, JL, Eagles, DA, Franco, MA, Hanson, J, Mullen, BF, Partridge, IJ, Peters, M, Schultze-Kraft, R (2005) Tropical forages. Brisbane, Australia: CSIRO, DPI&F(Qld), CIAT and ILRI https://www.tropicalforages.info/text/intro/index.html. Accessed: October 10, 2021Google Scholar
Dice, L (1945) Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26:297 – 302 10.2307/1932409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esteve-Gassent, MD, Pérez de León, AA, Romero-Salas, D, Feria-Arroyo, TP, Patino, R, Castro-Arellano, I, Gordillo-Pérez, G, Auclair, A, Goolsby, J, Rodriguez-Vivas, RI, Estrada-Franco, JG (2014) Pathogenic landscape of transboundary zoonotic diseases in the Mexico–US border along the Rio Grande. Front Public Health 2:1–23 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia-Rossi, D, Rank, N, Strong, DR (2003) Potential for self-defeating biological control? Variation in herbivore vulnerability among invasive Spartina genotypes. Ecol Appl 13:1640–1649 10.1890/01-5301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskin, J, Kazmer, D (2009) Introgression between invasive saltcedars (Tamarix chinensis and T. ramosissima) in the USA. Biol Invasions 11:1121 – 1130 10.1007/s10530-008-9384-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskin, JF, Bon, MC, Cock, MJ, Cristofaro, M, De Biase, A, De Clerck-Floate, R, Ellison, CA, Hinz, HL, Hufbauer, RA, Julien, MH, Sforza, R (2011) Applying molecular-based approaches to classical biological control of weeds. Biol Control 58:1–21 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2011.03.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskin, JF, Wilson, LM (2007) Phylogenetic relationships among native and naturalized Hieracium (Asteraceae) in Canada and the United States based on plastid DNA sequences. Syst Bot 32:478–485 10.1600/036364407781179752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goolsby, JA, De Barro, PJ, Makinson, JR, Pemberton, RW, Hartley, DM, Frohlich, DR (2006a) Matching the origin of an invasive weed for selection of a herbivore haplotype for a biological control programme. Mol Ecol 15:287–297 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02788.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goolsby, JA, van Klinken, RD, Palmer, WA (2006b) Maximising the contribution of native-range studies towards the identification and prioritisation of weed biocontrol agents. Austr J Entomol 45:276–286 10.1111/j.1440-6055.2006.00551.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harms, NE, Cronin, JT, Diaz, R, Winston, RL (2020) A review of the causes and consequences of geographical variability in weed biological control successes. Biol Control 151:104398 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillis, DM, Moritz, C, Mable, BK (1996) Molecular Systematics. 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 655 pGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, AA, Taliaferro, CM, Murphy, CD, Christian, D (1996) Chromosome number and nuclear DNA content of several switchgrass populations. Crop Science 36:1192–1195 10.2135/cropsci1996.0011183X003600050021xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaushal, P, Paul, S, Saxena, S, Dwivedi, KK, Chakraborti, M, Radhakrishna, A, Roy, AK, Malaviya, DR (2015) Generating higher ploidies (7x and 11x) in guinea grass (Panicum maximum Jacq.) utilizing reproductive diversity and uncoupled apomixis components. Curr Sci 109:1392–1395 Google Scholar
Kumar, S, Stecher, G, Li, M, Knyaz, C, Tamura, K (2018) MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol 35:1547–1549 10.1093/molbev/msy096CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maitland, TD, Hubbard, CE (1927) Notes on African grasses, V. Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) 1927(7):264–305Google Scholar
Mercadier, G, Goolsby, JA, Jones, WA, Tamesse, JL (2009) Results of preliminary survey in Cameroon, Central Africa, for potential natural enemies of Panicum maximum Jacq. (Poales: Poaceae), Guineagrass. Subtrop Plant Sci 61:31–36 Google Scholar
Muir, JP, Jank, L (2004) Guineagrass. Pages 589–621 in Moser LE, Burson BL, Sollenberger LE, eds. Warm-Season (C4) Grasses. Agronomy Monograph No. 45. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Nakajima, K, Komatsu, N, Mochizuki, N, Suzuki, S (1979) Isolation of diploid and tetraploid sexual plants in guineagrass (Panicum maximum Jacq.). Jpn J Breed 29:228–238 10.1270/jsbbs1951.29.228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, AC, Plowes, RM, Goolsby, JA, Gaskin, JF, Musyoka, B, Calatayud, PA, Cristofaro, M, Grahmann, ED, Martins, DJ, Gilbert, LE (2021) The dilemma of Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus): a valued pasture grass and a highly invasive species. Biol Invasions 23:3653–3669 10.1007/s10530-021-02607-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlf, FJ (1992) NTSYS-PC: Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System. Setauket, NY: Exeter SoftwareGoogle Scholar
Savidan, Y, Pernès, J (1982) Diploid-tetraploid-dihaploid cycles and the evolution of Panicum maximum Jacq. Evolution 36:596–600 Google ScholarPubMed
Soti, P, Goolsby, JA, Racelis, AE (2020) Agricultural and environmental weeds of south Texas and their management. Subtropical Agric Environ 71:1–11 Google Scholar
Sutton, GF, Canavan, K, Day, MD, den Breeyen, A, Goolsby, JA, Cristofaro, M, McConnachie, A, Paterson, ID (2019) Grasses as suitable targets for classical weed biological control. BioControl 64:605–622 10.1007/s10526-019-09968-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taberlet, P, Geilly, L, Pautou, G, Bouvet, J (1991) Universal primers for amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA. Plant Mol Biol 17:1105–1109 10.1007/BF00037152CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vacek, AT, Goolsby, JA, Calatayud, PA, Le Ru, B, Musyoka, B, Kariyat, RR (2021) Importation and preliminary evaluation of the stem boring moth Buakea kaeuae as a potential biological control agent of invasive Guineagrass, Megathyrsus maximus . Southwest Entomol 46:257–260 10.3958/059.046.0125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vos, P, Hogers, R, Bleeker, M, Reijans, M, van de Lee, T, Hornes, M, Frijters, A, Pot, J, Peleman, J, Kuiper, M (1995) AFLP: a new technique for DNA-fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res 23:4407–4414 10.1093/nar/23.21.4407CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Gaskin et al. supplementary material

Gaskin et al. supplementary material

Download Gaskin et al. supplementary material(File)
File 181.5 KB