Figs and their pollinating fig wasps constitute a classic example of co-evolution. Recent molecular studies revealed that multiple cryptic fig wasp species may interact with single or different fig hosts; these species include pollinators associated with Ficus pumila. However, previous studies focused on different geographical ranges and fig varieties. The full evolutionary picture of F. pumila and its pollinating wasp, Wiebesia pumilae, has not been unraveled. Here, we collected mitochondrial COI sequences from the literature and studied the evolutionary history and phylogeography of the pollinating fig wasps of F. pumila L. var. pumila (creeping fig) and F. pumila var. awkeotsang (Makino) Corner (jelly fig). The W. pumilae contains three distinct lineages, of which Sp. 3 is mostly associated with F. pumila var. awkeotsang and Sp. 1 and Sp. 2 exclusively with F. pumila var. pumila. Wiebesia sp. 3 showed no genetic differentiation between sample collected from China and Taiwan. Besides, Sp. 3 samples from China exhibits only approximately 50% of genetic diversity compared to samples from Taiwan, suggesting Sp. 3 in China was recently introduced from Taiwan. Our study clarified the co-evolutionary relationships among F. pumila varieties and their pollinators, while showing how human activities have influenced their distribution. We also provide support for the endemism of both F. pumila var. awkeotsang and Sp. 3 in Taiwan.
Benson, Dennis A., Mark Cavanaugh, Karen Clark, Ilene Karsch-Mizrachi, David J. Lipman, James Ostell, and Eric W. Sayers. 2017. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 45(D1): D37–42. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw1070View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., S.G. Compton, M. Liu, and X.-Y. Chen. 2012. Fig trees at the northern limit of their range: the distributions of cryptic pollinators indicate multiple glacial refugia. Mol. Ecol. 21(7): 1687–1701. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05491.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., H.-Q. Li, S.-J. Ruan, and W.-L. Ma. 2008. Pollination of a cultivated fig, Ficus pumila var. awkeotsang, in South China. Symbiosis 45(1): 33–36.
Chen, Y., H.Q. Li, and W.L. Ma. 2002. The reproductive character of Ficus pumila var. pumila, F. pumila var. awkeotsang and their pollinators. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica 26(1): 58–63.
Clement, M., D. Posada, and K. A. Crandall. 2000. TCS: A computer program to estimate gene genealogies. Mol. Ecol. 9(10): 1657–1659. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.01020.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Cook, J.M., and S.T. Segar. 2010. Speciation in fig wasps. Ecol. Entomol. 35: 54–66. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2009.01148.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Cruaud, A., N. Ronsted, B. Chantarasuwan, L.S. Chou, W.L. Clement, A. Couloux, B. Cousins, G. Genson, R.D. Harrison, P.E. Hanson, M. Hossaert-Mckey, R. Jabbour-Zahab, E. Jousselin, C. Kerdelhu?, F. Kjellberg, C. Lopez-Vaamonde, J. Peebles, Y.Q. Peng, R.A.S. Pereira, T. Schramm, R. Ubaidillah, S.V. Noort, G.D. Weiblen, D.R. Yang, A. Yodpinyanee, R. Libeskind-Hadas, J.M. Cook, J.Y. Rasplus, and V. Savolainen. 2012. An extreme case of plant-insect codiversification: figs and fig-pollinating wasps. Syst. Biol. 61(6): 1029–1047. DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/sys068View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Excoffier, L., P.E. Smouse, and J.M. Quattro. 1992. Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131(2): 479–491. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/131.2.479View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Excoffier, L. and H.E. L. Lischer. 2010. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under linux and windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10(3): 564–567. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02847.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Herre, E.A., K.C. Jand?r, and C.A. Machado. 2008. Evolutionary ecology of figs and their associates: recent progress and outstanding puzzles. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39(1): 439–458. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110232View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Jackson, A.P., C.A. Machado, N. Robbins, and E.A. Herre. 2008. Multi-locus phylogenetic analysis of Neotropical figs does not support co-speciation with the pollinators: the importance of systematic scale in fig/wasp cophylogenetic studies. Symbiosis 45: 52–72.
Kong, S.-W. 2011. Morphological differences between pollinating fig wasps of Ficus pumila var. pumila and var. awkeotsang (Makino) Corner and their asymmetric host specificity. Master’s thesis, Department of Entymology, National Taiwan University.
Kumar, S., G. Stecher, and K. Tamura. 2016. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33(7): 1870–1874. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msw054View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Larkin, M. A., G. Blackshields, N.P. Brown, R. Chenna, P. A. McGettigan, H. McWilliam, F. Valentin, I.M. Wallace, A. Wilm, R. Lopez, J.D. Thompson, T.J. Gibson, and D.G. Higgins. 2007. Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23(21): 2947–2948. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm404View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Leigh, J.W., and D. Bryant. 2015. Popart?: full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6(9): 1110–1116. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12410View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Lin, R.-C., C.K. L. Yeung, J.J. Fong, H.-Y. Tzeng, and S.-H. Li. 2011. The lack of pollinator specificity in a dioecious fig tree: sympatric fig-pollinating wasps of Ficus septica in southern Taiwan. Biotropica 43(2): 200–207. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2010.00686.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Lin, T.P., C.C. Liu, C.Y. Yang, R.S. Huang, Y.S. Lee, and S.Y. Chang. 1990. Morphological and biochemical comparison of syconium of Ficus awkeotsang and Ficus pumila. Bull. Taiwan Forest Res. Inst. 5(1): 37–43. DOI: 10.7075/BTFRI.199003.0037View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Liu, M., R. Zhao, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, S.G. Compton, and X.-Y. Chen. 2014. Competitive exclusion among fig wasps achieved via entrainment of host plant flowering phenology. PLoS ONE 9(5): e97783. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097783View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Machado, C.A., N. Robbins, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, and E.A. Herre. 2005. Critical review of host specificity and its coevolutionary implications in the fig/fig-wasp mutualism. PNAS 102(Suppl 1): 6558–6565. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0501840102View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Meirmans, P.G. 2006. Using the AMOVA framework to estimate a standardized genetic differentiation measure. Evolution 60(11): 2399–2402. DOI: 10.1554/05-631.1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Nei, M., and T. Gojobori. 1986. Simple methods for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions. Mol. Biol. Evol. 3(5): 418–426. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msh242View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Rasplus, J.Y. 1996. The one-to-one species specificity of the ficus-agaoninae mutualism: how casual? in The Biodiversity of African Plants. 639-649. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-0285-5_78View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, L.J., A. Bain, L.S. Chou, L. Conchou, A. Cruaud, R. Gonzales, M. Hossaert-Mckey, J.Y. Rasplus, H.Y. Tzeng, and F. Kjellberg. 2017. Diversification and spatial structuring in the mutualism between Ficus septica and its pollinating wasps in insular South East Asia. BMC Evol. Biol. 17(1): 1–12. DOI: 10.1186/s12862-017-1034-8View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Rozas, J., A. Ferrer-Mata, J.C. S?nchez-DelBarrio, S. Guirao-Rico, P. Librado, S.E. Ramos-Onsins, and A. S?nchez-Gracia. 2017. DnaSP 6: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis of large data sets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34(12): 3299–3302. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msx248View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Saitou, N., and M. Nei. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4(4): 406–425.
Wang, H.-Y., C.-H. Hsieh, C.-G. Huang, S.-W. Kong, H.-C. Chang, H.-H. Lee, W.-K. Wang, S.-L. Chen, H.-Y. Tzeng, and W.-J. Wu. 2013. Genetic and physiological data suggest demographic and adaptive responses in complex interactions between populations of figs (Ficus pumila) and their pollinating wasps (Wiebesia pumilae). Mol. Ecol. 22(14): 3814–3832. DOI: 10.1111/mec.12336View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Weiblen, George D. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of fig wasps pollinating functionally dioecious Ficus based on mitochondrial DNA sequences and morphology. Syst. Biol. 50(2): 243–267. DOI: 10.1080/10635150151125897View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Wiebes, J.T. 1979. Co-evolution of figs and their insect pollinators. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 10(1): 1–12. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.es.10.110179.000245View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z.Y., P.H. Raven, and D.Y. Hong. 2003. Flora of China. Volume 5: Ulmaceae through Basellaceae. 69–70. Science Press, Beijing, China and Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, USA. DOI: 10.3100/025.015.0214View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Yang, L.-Y., C.A. Machado, X.-D. Dang, Y.-Q. Peng, D.-R. Yang, D.-Y. Zhang, and W.-J. Liao. 2015. The incidence and pattern of copollinator diversification in dioecious and monoecious figs. Evolution 69(2): 294–304. DOI: 10.1111/evo.12584View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Yang, S., Y.L. Chen, W.S. Wu, X.J. Chen, T.T. Bao, J.F. Ye, T.Y. Song, Y.L. Wu, L.S. Chou, and H.Y. Tzeng. 2017. Behavioral responses of Wiebesia pumilae to the female phase fig volatiles of Ficus pumila var. pumila and Ficus pumila var. awkeotsang. Acta Ecologica Sinica 37(21): 7161–7169.
Copyright @ Taiwania Editorial Office. All rights reserved.
Published by College of Life Science, National Taiwan University & Biodiversity Association of Taiwan, Taiwan
Contact address: Institute of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, College of Life Science, National Taiwan University, No.1, Sec.4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 10617, Taiwan