4.3 Article

A comparison of pollinator fig wasp development in figs of Ficus montana and its hybrids with Ficus asperifolia

期刊

ENTOMOLOGIA EXPERIMENTALIS ET APPLICATA
卷 156, 期 3, 页码 225-237

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eea.12338

关键词

Agaonidae; dioecy; F1 hybrids; galls; host specificity; Kradibia tentacularis; Moraceae; Sycoscapter

资金

  1. Libyan Higher Education Ministry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Figs (Moraceae) and pollinator fig wasps (Hymenoptera: Agaonidae) have a highly specific mutualistic relationship but fig wasps occasionally enter atypical hosts, and this can lead to hybrid fig trees and the potential for gene flow between species. Many fig trees are dioecious, with fig wasp offspring developing in galled ovules inside figs on male trees, whereas seeds develop only in figs on female trees. We generated experimental hybrids between the Asian Ficus montana Blume and a closely related African species Ficus asperifolia Miquel. Male F1s were sterile if entered by Kradibia tentacularis (Grandi) (Agaonidae), the pollinator of F. montana, because its offspring always failed to develop, without ovule enlargement. As with the F1s, figs on most male backcross plants [F. montana x (F. montana x F. asperifolia)] also aborted shortly after pollinator entry, resulting in a higher turnover of figs than with F. montana, although the times taken for the figs to reach receptivity were similar. Pollinator larvae nonetheless consistently managed to develop inside the figs of one backcross plant and also occasionally in a few figs from another backcross individual. In these figs, galled ovules developed as normal, whereas in figs that aborted the galled ovules failed to enlarge. The sex ratio of K. tentacularis progeny in the backcross figs was female biased and did not differ from that in F. montana figs. Sycoscapter spec. (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), a parasitoid of K. tentacularis, was able to lay eggs and developed normally inside male backcross figs where its host was present.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据