Diversity and phylogenetic relationships within the spiral ... · Nematology, 2011, Vol. 13(3), 333-345 Diversity and phylogenetic relationships within the spiral nematodes of Helicotylenchus
Post on 18-Jan-2020
1 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Nematology, 2011, Vol. 13(3), 333-345
Diversity and phylogenetic relationships within the spiralnematodes of Helicotylenchus Steiner, 1945 (Tylenchida:
Hoplolaimidae) as inferred from analysis of the D2-D3expansion segments of 28S rRNA gene sequences
Sergei A. SUBBOTIN 1,2,!, Renato N. INSERRA 3, Mariette MARAIS 4, Peter MULLIN 5,Thomas O. POWERS 5, Philip A. ROBERTS 6, Esther VAN DEN BERG 4,
Gregor W. YEATES 7 and James G. BALDWIN 6
1 Plant Pest Diagnostic Center, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road,Sacramento, CA 95832-1448, USA
2 Centre of Parasitology of A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences,Leninskii Prospect 33, Moscow, 117071, Russia
3 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, DPI, Nematology Section, P.O. Box 147100,Gainesville, FL 32614-7100, USA
4 National Collection of Nematodes, Biosystematics Programme, ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute,Private Bag X134, Queenswood, 0121 South Africa
5 Department of Plant Pathology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA6 Department of Nematology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
7 P.O. Box 1758, Palmerston North 4440, New Zealand
Received: 2 May 2010; revised: 1 July 2010Accepted for publication: 1 July 2010
Summary – The spiral nematodes of the genus Helicotylenchus are globally distributed and associated with the root system of diversegroups of plants in cultivated and uncultivated areas. Several species are considered serious parasites of crops. The identification ofmany Helicotylenchus species is not always reliable, in part because many species share very similar diagnostic characters and highintraspecific variation. To verify species identification of geographically distant populations of Helicotylenchus, we tested monophylyof some classical morphospecies and studied their phylogenetic relationships; specifically, we conducted sequence and phylogeneticanalysis of 89 sequences of the D2-D3 expansion segments of 28S rRNA gene sequences from 54 Helicotylenchus isolates, includingspecies identified as H. brevis, H. digonicus, H. dihystera, H. labiodiscinus, H. leiocephalus, H. martini, H. multicinctus, H. platyurus,H. pseudorobustus and H. vulgaris, together with three outgroup taxa. Phylogenetic analysis distinguished nine highly or moderatelysupported major clades within Helicotylenchus. Using the molecular approach we were able to confirm congruence with morphological-based identification of samples of H. dihystera and H. multicinctus. However, sequence and phylogenetic analysis using Bayesianinference and maximum parsimony analysis showed that isolates collected in different countries and morphologically identified asH. pseudorobustus, H. digonicus or H. vulgaris were each representative of several different and, sometimes, unrelated lineages.Further detailed comparative morphometrics and morphological studies will help to elucidate if there is some misidentification orif putative species actually comprise a complex of cryptic species. Molecular analysis also revealed that 14 samples were classifiedas representatives of 11 unidentified species. Molecular characterisation of known Helicotylenchus species especially, using samplescollected from type localities, is needed for future reliable identification of species of this genus.
Keywords – Bayesian inference, Helicotylenchus digonicus, Helicotylenchus dihystera, Helicotylenchus multicinctus, Helicotylenchuspseudorobustus, Helicotylenchus vulgaris, maximum parsimony, species delimiting.
! Corresponding author, e-mail: subbotin@ucr.edu
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI:10.1163/138855410X520936Also available online - www.brill.nl/nemy 333
S.A. Subbotin et al.
Helicotylenchus Steiner, 1945 is a cosmopolitan genuswith more than 200 species which are commonly calledspiral nematodes because of their coiled habitus mortis(Marais, 2001). These migratory ectoparasitic or semi-endoparasitic nematodes may occur in very high numbersfeeding upon roots of diverse plants and may be abun-dant in soil surrounding host roots (Taylor, 1961; Nor-ton, 1977; Krall, 1978). Species of Helicotylenchus areglobally distributed, spanning many climates, and are as-sociated with the root system of diverse crops of agricul-tural importance. Although data are not available to im-plicate most Helicotylenchus as serious parasites, plantgrowth suppression has been consistently associated withat least five cosmopolitan species: H. digonicus Perryin Perry, Darling & Thorne, 1959, H. dihystera (Cobb,1896) Sher, 1961, H. indicus Siddiqi, 1963, H. multi-cinctus (Cobb, 1893) Golden, 1956 and H. pseudorobus-tus (Steiner, 1914) Golden, 1956. Other species, such asH. cavenessi Sher, 1966, H. erythrinae (Zimmermann,1904) Golden, 1956 and H. microcephalus Sher, 1966,have also been implicated as potentially damaging pests(O’Bannon & Inserra, 1989). The banana spiral nema-tode, H. multicinctus, is endoparasitic and polyphagous,but it is best known for suppressing growth and yield ofbanana in many regions of the world (Krall, 1978; McSor-ley & Parrado, 1986; De Waele & Elsen, 2007). Anotherless known endoparasite is H. variocaudatus Yuen, 1964,which parasitises banana roots in the islands of São Tomeand Príncipe (Vovlas et al., 1995) and also in Rwanda(Van den Berg et al., 2003).
Available dichotomous or polytomous identificationkeys to spiral nematodes (Sher, 1966; Siddiqi, 1972; Boag& Jairajpuri, 1985; Firoza & Maqbool, 1994) are espe-cially helpful in the identification of species that havepeculiar morphological characters. Such species includethose with a posterior gonad less developed than the ante-rior one as in the case of H. multicinctus, which is distin-guished also by a short C-shaped body, a slightly taperingtail, a hemispherical and annulated tail terminus, and nu-merous males (Vovlas et al., 1995). However, the identi-fication of other species is not always reliable, partly be-cause many species share very similar diagnostic charac-ters and species boundaries are not well established. Somefeatures have broad overlapping ranges and intraspecificvariability with characters apparently influenced by en-vironmental conditions, including the host plant (For-tuner, 1979, 1984; Fortuner & Quénéhervé, 1980; For-tuner et al., 1981). Although multivariate analyses canbe useful in reducing the effect of intraspecific variabil-
ity of morphological characters (Fortuner & Maggenti,1991), identification of these nematodes by morphologyalone often remains unresolved or uncertain due to limita-tions of the morphological analysis. Application of non-morphological characters such as DNA sequences canhelp to confirm classical morphology-based identifica-tions and resolve some of the problems experienced in theidentification of Helicotylenchus species.
Application of rRNA gene sequences provides an at-tractive solution for quick and reliable nematode diagnos-tics. Recently, several studies using the ITS-rDNA (Chenet al., 2006), D2-D3 of 28S rRNA (Subbotin et al., 2006,2007; Bae et al., 2009), and 18S rDNA (Holterman et al.,2009) demonstrated the usefulness of this approach foridentification of species of Helicotylenchus. Analysis ofrRNA gene sequences (Subbotin et al., 2007; Bae et al.,2009; Holterman et al., 2009) also provides a basis for re-constructing phylogenetic relationships within this genus.However, such a phylogeny has not been proposed previ-ously based on morphological or molecular datasets.
The major objectives of the present study were to:i) to verify species identification of geographically dis-tant populations of Helicotylenchus by analysing theirfragments of rRNA gene sequences; ii) test monophylyof classical morphospecies and estimate species bound-aries using rRNA gene sequences from large numbersof geographically diverse isolates; and iii) study phy-logenetic relationships within Helicotylenchus using se-quences from the D2-D3 expansion segments of the 28SrRNA gene as inferred from Bayesian inference and max-imum parsimony approaches.
Materials and methods
NEMATODE POPULATIONS, SPECIES IDENTIFICATION
AND DELIMITING
Nematode populations used in this study were obtainedfrom soil samples collected from geographically diverselocations (Table 1). The nematodes were extracted fromsamples using the Baermann funnel, centrifugal flotationor elutriation techniques (Hooper, 1986). Specimens werekilled by gentle heat, fixed by 4% formalin, TAF orFPG and mounted in anhydrous glycerin or immobilisedby gently heating and then mounting in water agarfor examination (Netscher & Seinhorst, 1969; Esser,1986). All morphological identifications of specimens,except for the South African ones, were done by usingidentification keys and descriptions provided by Siddiqi
334 Nematology
Diversity and phylogeny of HelicotylenchusTa
ble
1.H
elic
otyl
ench
uspo
pula
tions
and
spec
ies
used
inth
epr
esen
tstu
dy.
Iden
tifica
tion
base
don
mor
phol
ogy
and
mol
ecul
arda
ta
Prel
imin
ary
iden
tifica
tion
base
don
mor
phol
ogy
Cla
de(S
ubcl
ade)
Loc
atio
nPl
ant-
host
Sam
ple
code
Gen
Ban
kac
cess
ion
num
ber
Ref
eren
ceor
sour
ce
H.p
seud
orob
ustu
s,H
.pse
udor
obus
tus
I(1)
USA
,Kan
sas,
Kon
zaPr
airi
e,K
oele
ria
1462
2H
M01
4266
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,T
.Pow
ers
type
CM
anha
ttan
pyra
mid
ata
HM
0142
67H
.lei
ocep
halu
sH
.lei
ocep
halu
sI(
2)U
SA,N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
,A
mor
pha
1462
0H
M01
4268
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,T
.Pow
ers
Nin
eM
ilePr
airi
eca
nesc
ens
HM
0142
69H
.pse
udor
obus
tus,
H.p
seud
orob
ustu
sI(
3)U
SA,N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
,Pa
nicu
m14
619
HM
0142
70,
Pres
ents
tudy
,T.P
ower
sty
peD
Nin
eM
ilePr
airi
evi
rgat
umH
M01
4274
H.d
igon
icus
,H
.dig
onic
usI(
4)U
SA,N
ebra
ska,
Pani
cum
1462
3H
M01
4271
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,T
.Pow
ers
type
BN
ine
Mile
Prai
rie,
Lin
coln
virg
atum
HM
0142
72H
elic
otyl
ench
usH
elic
otyl
ench
ussp
.I(
5)U
SA,K
ansa
s,K
onza
Prai
rie,
Koe
leri
a14
630
HM
0142
73Pr
esen
tstu
dy,T
.Pow
ers
spI-
5M
anha
ttan
pyra
mid
ata
H.p
laty
urus
H.p
laty
urus
I(6)
USA
,Neb
rask
a,A
mor
pha
1462
1H
M01
4265
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,T
.Pow
ers
Nin
eM
ilePr
airi
e,L
inco
lnca
nesc
ens
HM
0142
75H
.pse
udor
obus
tus,
H.p
seud
orob
ustu
sI(
7)G
erm
any,
Mün
ster
,BB
A–
590
DQ
3287
51Su
bbot
inet
al.(
2006
)ty
peA
glas
shou
seH
.pse
udor
obus
tus,
H.l
abia
tus
I(7)
New
Zea
land
,Rot
orua
Loliu
mpe
renn
eC
D25
6H
M01
4279
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,G
.Yea
tes
type
AH
M01
4280
H.p
seud
orob
ustu
s,H
elic
otyl
ench
ussp
.I(
7)N
ewZ
eala
nd,
Loliu
mpe
renn
e,N
453;
HM
0142
78Pr
esen
tstu
dy,G
.Yea
tes
type
AM
AF
farm
,Kai
toke
Trifo
lium
repe
nsC
D42
8H
elic
otyl
ench
usH
elic
otyl
ench
ussp
.I(
8)U
SA,K
onza
Prai
rie,
And
ropo
gon
1462
8H
M01
4281
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,T
.Pow
ers
spI-
8M
anha
ttan,
Kan
sas
blad
hiH
M01
4282
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
sp.
I(9)
USA
,Cal
ifor
nia,
Gra
sses
CD
363
HM
0142
76,
Pres
ents
tudy
,S.A
.Sub
botin
spI-
9D
eath
Val
ley
HM
0142
77H
elic
otyl
ench
usH
elic
otyl
ench
ussp
.I(
10)
USA
,Cal
ifor
nia
–4I
22G
4D
Q07
7794
De
Ley
etal
.(20
05)
spI-
10H
.pse
udor
obus
tus,
H.p
seud
orob
ustu
sI(
11)
USA
,Illi
nois
,Uni
vers
ityTu
rfgr
ass
ILC
171
FJ48
5649
Bae
etal
.(20
09)
type
Bof
Illin
ois
H.p
seud
orob
ustu
s,H
.pse
udor
obus
tus
I(11
)U
SA,C
alif
orni
a,Fr
esno
Zea
may
sC
599
HM
0142
63,
Pres
ents
tudy
,S.A
.Sub
botin
type
BH
M01
4264
H.p
seud
orob
ustu
s,H
.pse
udor
obus
tus
I(11
)It
aly,
Anc
ona
–72
7D
Q32
8750
Subb
otin
etal
.(20
07)
type
BH
.pse
udor
obus
tus,
H.p
seud
orob
ustu
sI(
11)
Chi
na,B
eijin
g–
718
DQ
3287
47,
Subb
otin
etal
.(20
07)
type
BD
Q32
8749
H.p
seud
orob
ustu
s,H
.pse
udor
obus
tus
I(11
)U
SA,C
alif
orni
a,Fr
esno
–C
A4
DQ
3287
48Su
bbot
inet
al.(
2007
)ty
peB
H.d
ihys
tera
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
sp.
IIU
SA,F
lori
da,
Sche
ffler
aC
D60
3H
M01
4245
Pres
ents
tudy
,S.A
.Sub
botin
FtL
aude
rdal
ear
bori
cola
Vol. 13(3), 2011 335
S.A. Subbotin et al.Ta
ble
1.(C
ontin
ued)
.Id
entifi
catio
nba
sed
onm
orph
olog
yan
dm
olec
ular
data
Prel
imin
ary
iden
tifica
tion
base
don
mor
phol
ogy
Cla
de(S
ubcl
ade)
Loc
atio
nPl
ant-
host
Sam
ple
code
Gen
Ban
kac
cess
ion
num
ber
Ref
eren
ceor
sour
ce
H.d
ihys
tera
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
sp.
IIU
SA,F
lori
da,G
ould
sB
rom
elia
dsC
D50
8H
M01
4242
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,R
.Ins
erra
HM
0142
46H
.dih
yste
raH
elic
otyl
ench
ussp
.II
USA
,Flo
rida
,FtP
ierc
eFi
cus
CD
423
HM
0142
47Pr
esen
tstu
dy,S
.A.S
ubbo
tinbe
njam
ina
H.d
ihys
tera
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
sp.
IIU
SA,H
awai
i,K
awai
Gra
sses
CA
157
HM
0142
48Pr
esen
tstu
dy,S
.A.S
ubbo
tinH
.dih
yste
raH
.rot
undi
caud
aII
USA
,Geo
rgia
,–
1462
7H
M01
4249
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,T
.Pow
ers
Uni
vers
ityof
Geo
rgia
,Ath
ens
HM
0142
52H
.dih
yste
raH
elic
otyl
ench
ussp
.II
USA
,Haw
aii,
Kaw
aiG
rass
esC
A15
2H
M01
4243
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,S
.A.S
ubbo
tinH
M01
4250
H.d
ihys
tera
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
sp.
IIU
SA,F
lori
da,L
ake
Wor
thFi
cus
sp.
CD
359
HM
0142
58,
Pres
ents
tudy
,S.A
.Sub
botin
HM
0142
59H
.dih
yste
raH
.dih
yste
raII
Sout
hA
fric
a,P
sidi
umsp
.T
v194
7;H
M01
4256
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,M
.Mar
ais
Mpu
mal
anga
Prov
ince
,Nel
spru
itC
D38
5H
M01
4260
H.d
ihys
tera
H.d
ihys
tera
IIU
SA,F
lori
da,A
popk
aN
eore
gelia
sp.
CD
616
HM
0142
61,
Pres
ents
tudy
,S.A
.Sub
botin
HM
0142
62H
.dih
yste
raH
elic
otyl
ench
ussp
.II
USA
,Haw
aii,
Mau
i–
CD
617
HM
0142
44,
Pres
ents
tudy
,S.A
.Sub
botin
HM
0142
54H
.dih
yste
raH
.rot
undi
caud
aII
USA
,Geo
rgia
,–
1462
6H
M01
4251
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,T
.Pow
ers
Uni
vers
ityof
Geo
rgia
,Ath
ens
HM
0142
53H
.dih
yste
raH
.dih
yste
raII
USA
,Flo
rida
,Hom
este
adB
rom
elia
dsC
D60
0H
M01
4257
Pres
ents
tudy
,S.A
.Sub
botin
H.d
ihys
tera
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
sp.
IIU
SA,H
awai
i,K
awai
Gra
sses
CA
150
HM
0142
55Pr
esen
tstu
dy,S
.A.S
ubbo
tinH
.dih
yste
raH
.dih
yste
raII
USA
,Geo
rgia
,–
GA
C17
7FJ
4856
51B
aeet
al.(
2009
)U
GA
Res
earc
hSt
atio
n,M
idvi
lleH
elic
otyl
ench
usH
.dih
yste
raII
I(1)
Bur
kina
Faso
,Leg
uém
aVi
gna
CA
172
HM
0142
85,
Pres
ents
tudy
,P.R
ober
tssp
III-
1un
guic
ulat
aH
M01
4286
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
H.d
ihys
tera
III(
1)B
urki
naFa
so,F
arak
o-B
âVi
gna
CA
175
HM
0142
87,
Pres
ents
tudy
,P.R
ober
tssp
III-
1un
guic
ulat
aH
M01
4288
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
H.m
icro
lobu
sII
I(1)
USA
,Flo
rida
,FtL
aude
rdal
eSt
enot
aphr
umFL
C18
0FJ
4856
48B
aeet
al.(
2009
)sp
III-
1se
cund
atum
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
sp.
III(
2)U
SA,F
lori
da,G
ould
sA
gave
sp.
CD
601
HM
0142
89Pr
esen
tstu
dy,S
.A.S
ubbo
tinsp
III-
2H
.mul
ticin
ctus
H.m
ultic
inct
usII
I(3)
Suda
nM
usa
sp.
–D
Q32
8745
,Su
bbot
inet
al.(
2007
)D
Q32
8746
H.m
ultic
inct
usH
.mul
ticin
ctus
III(
3)So
uth
Afr
ica,
Mus
asp
.T
v195
7;H
M01
4290
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,M
.Mar
ais
Lim
popo
Prov
ince
,Lam
bani
CD
511
HM
0142
91H
.mul
ticin
ctus
H.m
ultic
inct
usII
I(3)
USA
,Flo
rida
,FtP
ierc
eFi
cus
CD
423
HM
0142
92Pr
esen
tstu
dy,S
.A.S
ubbo
tinbe
njam
ina
336 Nematology
Diversity and phylogeny of HelicotylenchusTa
ble
1.(C
ontin
ued)
.Id
entifi
catio
nba
sed
onm
orph
olog
yan
dm
olec
ular
data
Prel
imin
ary
iden
tifica
tion
base
don
mor
phol
ogy
Cla
de(S
ubcl
ade)
Loc
atio
nPl
ant-
host
Sam
ple
code
Gen
Ban
kac
cess
ion
num
ber
Ref
eren
ceor
sour
ce
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
sp.
IVU
SA,H
awai
i,K
awai
Gra
sses
CA
157
HM
0142
84Pr
esen
tstu
dy,S
.A.S
ubbo
tinsp
IVH
elic
otyl
ench
usH
elic
otyl
ench
ussp
.IV
USA
,Haw
aii,
Kaw
aiG
rass
esC
A15
0H
M01
4283
Pres
ents
tudy
,S.A
.Sub
botin
spIV
H.v
ulga
ris,
H.v
ulga
ris
V(1
)So
uth
Afr
ica,
Gra
sses
Tvl
1987
;H
M01
4238
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,M
.Mar
ais
type
BL
impo
poPr
ovin
ce,L
amba
niC
D62
0H
M01
4239
H.d
igon
icus
,H
.dig
onic
usV
(2)
Sout
hA
fric
a,G
lyci
nem
axT
vl19
49;
HM
0142
40,
Pres
ents
tudy
,M.M
arai
sty
peC
Lim
popo
Prov
ince
,Koe
does
kop
CD
382
HM
0142
41H
.lab
iodi
scin
usH
.dig
onic
usV
IU
SA,K
ansa
s,K
onza
Prai
rie,
Poa
1462
5H
M01
4293
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,T
.Pow
ers
Man
hatta
npr
aten
sis
HM
0142
98H
.lab
iodi
scin
usH
.lab
iodi
scin
usV
IU
SA,K
ansa
s,K
onza
Prai
rie,
Schi
zach
yriu
m14
631
HM
0142
95,
Pres
ents
tudy
,T.P
ower
sM
anha
ttan
scop
ariu
mH
M01
4296
H.l
abio
disc
inus
H.l
abio
disc
inus
VI
USA
,Kan
sas,
Kon
zaPr
airi
e,A
ndro
pogo
n14
629
HM
0142
94,
Pres
ents
tudy
,T.P
ower
sM
anha
ttan
gera
rdii
HM
0142
97H
.bre
vis
H.b
revi
sV
II(1
)So
uth
Afr
ica,
Sola
num
Tv1
969;
HM
0142
99,
Pres
ents
tudy
,M.M
arai
sN
orth
Wes
tPro
vinc
e.m
auri
tianu
mC
D55
6H
M01
4300
Mag
alie
sber
g,ne
arM
aret
lwan
eR
iver
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
sp.
VII
(2)
USA
–C
D34
7H
M01
4301
Pres
ents
tudy
,S.A
.Sub
botin
spV
IIH
.mar
tini
H.m
artin
iV
III
Sout
hA
fric
a,G
rass
esT
vl19
84;
HM
0143
04,
Pres
ents
tudy
,M.M
arai
sL
impo
poPr
ovin
ce,L
amba
niC
D61
3H
M01
4305
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
Hel
icot
ylen
chus
sp.
IX(1
)U
SA,C
alif
orni
a,So
lano
,Ju
glan
ssp
.C
D50
5H
M01
4302
,Pr
esen
tstu
dy,S
.A.S
ubbo
tinsp
IX-1
Win
ters
HM
0143
03H
.dig
onic
us,
H.d
igon
icus
IX(2
)It
aly
–72
3D
Q32
8758
Subb
otin
etal
.(20
07)
type
AH
elic
otyl
ench
usH
elic
otyl
ench
ussp
.IX
(3)
Bel
gium
,Ghe
nt–
LG
43D
Q32
8754
Subb
otin
etal
.(20
07)
spIX
-3H
elic
otyl
ench
usH
elic
otyl
ench
ussp
.IX
(4)
Rus
sia,
Mos
cow
regi
on–
RU
21D
Q32
8755
Subb
otin
etal
.(20
07)
spIX
-4H
.vul
gari
s,H
.vul
gari
sIX
(5)
USA
,Ark
ansa
s,–
KrC
210
FJ48
5650
Bae
etal
.(20
09)
type
AU
nive
rsity
ofA
rkan
sas
H.v
ulga
ris,
H.v
ulga
ris
IX(5
)It
aly,
Anc
ona
–A
I36,
DQ
3287
59-
Subb
otin
etal
.(20
07)
type
AA
I13
DQ
3287
61
Vol. 13(3), 2011 337
S.A. Subbotin et al.
(1972), Krall (1978), Anderson and Eveleigh (1982),Boag and Jairajpuri (1985) and Firoza and Maqbool(1994). The South African materials were identified usingthe relevant species descriptions without the use of any ofpublished diagnostic keys.
For some populations, species were delimited anddefined based on an integrated approach that consid-ered morphological evaluation combined with molecular-based phylogenetic inference (tree based methods) andsequence analyses (genetic distance methods) (Sites &Marshall, 2004).
DNA EXTRACTION, PCR, CLONING AND
SEQUENCING
Nematode DNA was extracted from several individualsusing proteinase K. Detailed protocols for DNA extractionand PCR were as described by Tanha Maafi et al. (2003).The forward D2A (5"-ACAAGTACCGTGAGGGAAAGTTG-3") and reverse D3B (5"-TCGGAAGGAACCAGCTACTA-3") primers were used for amplification and se-quencing of the fragment of D2-D3 regions of the 28SrRNA gene (Subbotin et al., 2006). PCR products werepurified using QIAquick (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA)gel extraction kits and then cloned using pGEM-T Vec-tor System II kit (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). One ortwo clones were sequenced from each sample. The result-ing products were purified and run on a DNA sequencer atthe University of California, Riverside, Genomics Center.The newly obtained sequences have been submitted to theGenBank database under accession numbers indicated inTable 1.
SEQUENCE AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES
The newly obtained sequences were aligned usingClustalX (Thompson et al., 1997) with default parametersand with sequences published for Helicotylenchus inGenBank (De Ley et al., 2005; Subbotin et al., 2007;Bae et al., 2009) and with Rotylenchus magnus Zancada,1985, Hoplolaimus galeatus (Cobb, 1913) Thorne, 1935and H. seinhorsti Luc, 1958 used as outgroup taxa(Subbotin et al., 2007; Bae et al., 2008; Vovlas etal., 2008). Sequence and phylogenetic analysis of thedataset was performed with Bayesian inference (BI) usingMrBayes 3.1.2 (Huelsenbeck & Ronquist, 2001) andmaximum parsimony (MP) using PAUP* 4b10 (Swofford,2003). BI analysis under the GTR + I + G modelwas initiated with a random starting tree and was runwith four chains for 1.0 # 106 generations. The Markov
chains were sampled at intervals of 100 generations.Two runs were performed for each analysis. The log-likelihood values of the sample points stabilised afterapproximately 103 generations. The topologies were usedto generate a 50% majority rule consensus tree. Posteriorprobabilities (PP) are given on appropriate clades. ForMP we used a heuristic search setting with ten replicatesof random taxon addition (max. tree number = 1000),tree bisection-reconnection branch swapping to seek themost parsimonious trees. Gaps were treated as missingdata. To obtain an estimate of support for each node,a bootstrap analysis (BS) with 100 replicates (max treenumber = 100) was done. Sequence differences betweensamples were calculated with PAUP* 4b10 as an absolutedistance matrix and the percentage was adjusted formissing data.
Results
SPECIES IDENTIFICATION AND DELIMITING
Eighty-six sequences from 54 Helicotylenchus isolateswere included in the analysis. Sixty-eight sequences werenewly obtained in the present study. Using traditionalmorphological taxonomic characters and molecular crite-ria (apomorphies and DNA distances), we distinguishedthe following species within the samples: Helicotylen-chus brevis (Whitehead, 1958) Fortuner, 1960, H. digo-nicus, H. dihystera, H. labiodiscinus Sher, 1966, H. leio-cephalus Sher, 1966, H. martini Sher, 1966, H. multicinc-tus, H. platyurus Perry in Perry, Darling & Thorne, 1959,H. pseudorobustus and H. vulgaris Yuen, 1964. Severalsamples, which were identified morphologically as repre-sentative of the same species, showed differences in mole-cular characteristics, and were thus classified as differ-ent species types: H. pseudorobustus type ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’and ‘D’, H. vulgaris type ‘A’ and ‘B’ and H. digoni-cus type ‘A’ and ‘B’. Fourteen samples were classified asrepresentatives of 11 unidentified species. More detailedmorphological and molecular analysis is required to fur-ther evaluate and identify these samples. Sequence andphylogenetic analysis confirmed that each analysed sam-ple used in the present study contained representatives ofa single species only. One exception, collected in KawaiiIsland, included a mixture of specimens with H. dihysteraand Helicotylenchus spIV.
338 Nematology
Diversity and phylogeny of Helicotylenchus
SEQUENCE ANALYSIS
Amplification of D2-D3 of the 28S rRNA gene usingPCR produced a single fragment of ca 680 bp for the sam-ples studied. The sequence alignment for Helicotylenchusand outgroup taxa included 89 sequences and was 596 bpin length. Sequence diversity within all studied taxa in-cluding outgroup taxa reached 20.7% (118 nucleotides(nt)) and for Helicotylenchus it reached 19.9% (115 nt).Minimal interspecific sequence variation was observedfor taxa belonging to clades I, III, V and IX (Figs 1, 2).Intraspecific sequence diversity varied for H. pseudoro-bustus type A from 0.2-0.5% (1-3 nt), H. pseudorobus-tus type B from 0-0.5% (0-3 nt), H. labiodiscinus from0.5-1.5% (3-9 nt), H. multicinctus from 0.5-1.0% (3-6 nt),H. vulgaris type A from 0.3-0.9% (2-5 nt), and H. dihys-tera from 0-2.3% (0-13 nt). Heterogeneity was observedfor many taxa among sequenced clones originated fromthe same PCR product. The largest difference was foundbetween two sequenced clones for a H. martini sample,which reached 6% (35 nt).
PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS
Phylogenetic relationships within Helicotylenchus asinferred from Bayesian inference and maximum parsi-mony are given in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Topolo-gies of BI and MP trees were congruent, except for po-sitions of some weakly supported clades. Nine highlyor moderately supported major clades were distinguishedwithin Helicotylenchus. Clade I (PP = 100%, BS = 74%)and included 11 putative taxa as follows: H. pseudoro-bustus type A, B, C and D, H. leiocephalus, H. digoni-cus type B, H. platyurus, Helicotylenchus spI-5, spI-8,spI-9 and spI-10. Clade II (PP = 100%, BS = 97%)consisted of 22 sequences obtained from 14 samplesidentified here as H. dihystera. Clade III (PP = 72%,BS < 50%) included five sequences of H. multicinc-tus and sequences from two unidentified Helicotylen-chus taxa (Helicotylenchus spIII-1 and spIII-2). Clade IV(PP = 100%, BS = 100%) included only one unidentifiedHelicotylenchus sample (Helicotylenchus spIV). Clade V(PP = 100%, BS = 100%) contained four sequences fromsamples identified as H. vulgaris type B and H. digonicustype C. The highly supported clades VI and VIII each in-cluded only a single taxon, H. labiodiscinus and H. mar-tini, respectively. Clade VII (PP = 100%; BS = 97%)consisted of H. brevis and an unidentified Helicotylenchussample (Helicotylenchus spVII). Clade IX (PP = 100%;BS = 96%) included H. vulgaris type A, H. digonicus
type A, and three unidentified Helicotylenchus samples(Helicotylenchus spIX-1, spIX-3, spIX-4).
Discussion
INTEGRATED APPROACH FOR HELICOTYLENCHUSSYSTEMATICS
Identification of Helicotylenchus species is often not aneasy task because of high intra- and interspecific variabil-ity and a large number of poorly described species (For-tuner, 1979, 1984; Fortuner & Quénéhervé, 1980). Vari-ous authors have published dichotomous keys for Helico-tylenchus, but none of these keys is reliable for speciesdiagnostics (Fortuner & Wong, 1984). To try to overcomethe inherent flaws of dichotomous keys a number of com-pendia have been published. However, compendia, likekeys, rapidly become outdated (Boag & Jairajpuri, 1985;Firoza & Maqbool, 1994; Vovlas et al., 1995). The useof such diagnostic keys and compendia can consequentlylead to unresolved or uncertain identification of Helicoty-lenchus species.
Phylogenetic and DNA sequence analyses of nema-tode samples provide additional criteria for identifyingand delimiting species within Helicotylenchus. Our find-ings show that there was congruence between the resultsof the molecular and morphological analyses of H. di-hystera and H. multicinctus. However, the morphologicalidentification of a large number of the spiral nematodesstudied seems not to be reliable. For example, the prelim-inary results comparing morphological identification fromdifferent nematology laboratories failed to delimit speciesboundaries and conflicted with results based on a molecu-lar approach. Common species collected and morpholog-ically identified from different countries as H. pseudoro-bustus, H. vulgaris or H. digonicus were assessed as be-ing different and often not closely related taxa when theywere subjected to molecular analysis. In this study we pro-visionally distinguished such samples by a letter code: H.pseudorobustus type A, B, C and D, H. vulgaris type Aand B and H. digonicus type A and B. Comparative de-tailed morphometrics and morphological studies can helpto elucidate if there is some misidentification or if each ofthese putative species is actually comprised of a complexof cryptic species. Identification of these samples will bepossible after careful molecular and morphological char-acterisation of type representatives of these species, in-cluding new material collected from the type localities.Similarly, several samples each were identified as repre-sentatives of H. leiocephalus, H. platyurus, H. labiodisci-
Vol. 13(3), 2011 339
S.A. Subbotin et al.
340 Nematology
Diversity and phylogeny of Helicotylenchus
nus, H. brevis and H. martini, although none of these werefrom the type locality, thereby underscoring the need forfurther work to confirm these identifications.
In several cases, molecular approaches failed to delimitboundaries of recognised species. For example: i) twosequence clones from the D2-D3 rRNA PCR productobtained from a single sample and identified as H.platyurus did not cluster together; and ii) two sequences ofH. martini showed a high level of nucleotide differencesbeyond the level of intraspecific variation common forHelicotylenchus species.
These observations, coupled with the indistinct natureof species boundaries, emphasise the importance of usingan integrated approach to delimiting species and cautionagainst reliance on any single dataset or method for thispurpose. Particularly for groups such as Helicotylenchus,these considerations also challenge defining species con-cepts and how to operationally address such concepts.
PHYLOGENY AND TAXONOMY OF HELICOTYLENCHUS
Fortuner (1991) suggested that Helicotylenchus mostlikely originated from ancestral forms close to Pararoty-lenchus and he also noted that it was not known whetherHelicotylenchus and the other Hoplolaiminae are mono-phyletic. In phylogenetic analyses using 18S rRNA genesequences (Holterman et al., 2009; van Megen et al.,2009), Helicotylenchus was supported as monophyleticand its representatives formed a single clade but withbootstrap support varying from strong to weak. In theD2-D3 regions of 28S trees reconstructed under the GTRmodel of DNA evolution, the genus Helicotylenchus wasparaphyletic (Subbotin et al., 2006; Vovlas et al., 2008;Bae et al., 2009) and composed of two distinct lineages.However, application of the secondary structure model forthe same dataset (Subbotin et al., 2006) led to a tree withlower resolution of relationships among the main cladesand suggested that the paraphyly was the result of an arte-fact of the conventional models used. Based on these re-sults, we conclude that the presently available moleculardata do not provide convincing evidence in support of aparaphyletic origin of this genus.
Whitehead (1958) proposed the genus RotylenchoidesWhitehead, 1958 with R. brevis Whitehead, 1958 as thetype species. Rotylenchoides only differed from Helico-
tylenchus in a single characteristic that is in the regres-sion of the posterior genital branch. Rotylenchoides wasmade a junior synonym of Helicotylenchus by Fortuner(1984). Fortuner (1984) did not consider this characteras sufficient justification for establishing a genus, becauseof observation of a transformation series of regression ofthis organ documented throughout additional species ofthe genus Helicotylenchus or presence of the so called in-termediate forms. Siddiqi (1986, 2000) rejected the syn-onymy but Fortuner’s opinion was widely supported andthe synonymy of Rotylenchoides accepted (Ebsary, 1991;Vovlas et al., 1995; Marais, 1998, 2001; Van den Berg etal., 2003). The results of our phylogenetic analysis showthat H. brevis clusters within Helicotylenchus and thussupports the synonymisation of Rotylenchoides with Heli-cotylenchus.
SPECIES COMPLEXES WITHIN HELICOTYLENCHUS
Both H. dihystera and H. pseudorobustus have a world-wide distribution and have been reported from many dif-ferent host plants. Helicotylenchus dihystera is the typespecies of the genus, whereas H. pseudorobustus is con-sidered, after H. dihystera and H. multicinctus, to be themost frequently reported species of Helicotylenchus in theworld literature (Fortuner et al., 1984). In our tree, H. di-hystera was represented by 14 populations which werecollected from different plants in subtropical and tropicalregions and formed clade II. Fortuner et al. (1981) madeH. rotundicauda Sher, 1966 a junior synonym of H. dihys-tera on the grounds that the species shares the same rangeof variation as H. dihystera. Furthermore, as originally de-fined, the two species only differ in tail shape and shape ofthe stylet knobs and he did not consider those sufficient toaccept them as distinct species. The synonymy was ac-cepted by some taxonomists (Boag & Jairajpuri, 1985;Ebsary, 1991; Marais, 2001) but rejected by Siddiqi (Sid-diqi, 1986, 2000). The results of our phylogenetic analy-sis show that one of the samples identified by morpho-logical characters as H. rotundicauda clusters within H.dihystera and thus supports the synonymy of H. rotundi-cauda with H. dihystera. Samples from Burkina Faso,West Africa were identified morphologically as H. dihys-tera (Sawadogo et al., 2009) and clustered in Clade III,which includes H. multicinctus. These samples also clus-
Fig. 1. Phylogenetic relationships within Helicotylenchus populations and species: Bayesian 50% majority rule consensus tree fromtwo runs as inferred from analysis of D2-D3 of 28 rRNA gene sequence alignment under the GTR + I + G model. Posterior probabilitiesequal or more than 70% are given for appropriate clades.
Vol. 13(3), 2011 341
S.A. Subbotin et al.
342 Nematology
Diversity and phylogeny of Helicotylenchus
tered with samples from Florida, USA, one of which wasidentified as H. microlobus by Bae et al. (2009). Sher(1966) synonymised H. microlobus with H. pseudorobus-tus because he could not morphologically distinguish thetopotypes of H. microlobus from those of H. pseudoro-bustus. The opinion of Sher was supported by a numberof authors. These Clade III relationships show no obviousinterpretive pattern of association based on morphologyor geographical distribution, and require further analysisat the morphological and molecular levels.
Since Sher (1966) redescribed H. pseudorobustus fromtopotypes, many populations have been described fromdifferent countries. These populations show a high degreeof variability in several taxonomic characters, a fact thatoften confounds differentiation of this species from sim-ilar species (Fortuner et al., 1984). Fortuner et al. (1984)noted that this may be interpreted as a high degree ofintraspecific variability or it may be seen as evidence ofseveral species under the name of H. pseudorobustus. Us-ing multivariate analyses of characters for 28 populationsidentified as H. pseudorobustus, Fortuner et al. (1984) re-vealed some morphological differences among the popu-lations of H. pseudorobustus, mostly between samplesfrom North America and Western Europe. The differenceswere most apparent in the pattern of the junction of theinner lines of lateral field on the tail, as well as the posi-tion of the phasmids and the dorsal gland opening. Theyconcluded that multivariate analyses are a valuable iden-tification tool that can overcome the problem of intraspe-cific variability. They also noticed that a few samples orig-inally proposed as H. pseudorobustus were, in fact, moresimilar to H. dihystera or could represent another, uniden-tified species. Against this background it is not surpris-ing that in our study we were not able to identify un-ambiguously some samples as H. pseudorobustus and in-stead we proposed four possible candidates named hereas H. pseudorobustus type A, B, C and D. Most likely, thetype B found in Europe and having a wider distributionrepresents the true H. pseudorobustus. Future molecularanalysis of H. pseudorobustus samples collected from thetype locality in Switzerland could give a reliable sequencesignature for this species and will provide a basis to clarifyidentification of our samples.
The grouping of H. pseudorobustus type A and species,morphologically identified as H. labiatus, from NewZealand (clade I (7)), despite the consistent differences inlip region shape and the lateral fields on their tails, clearlyraises questions about their distinctness. Yeates and Wouts(1992) found only four Helicotylenchus species across the159 managed soils they sampled, with H. pseudorobus-tus being recorded from 52% of the sites and H. labiatusfrom 35% of the sites and with no males being recognised.However, Wouts and Yeates (1994) found eight Helicoty-lenchus species from native vegetation and undisturbedsoils but did not report either H. pseudorobustus or H.labiatus. Thus, these two nominal species were consid-ered to be apparently introduced to New Zealand, withthe probability of multiple introductions. They each havewide distribution within New Zealand and their variabilityin both morphological and molecular criteria may reflectthe global pool of populations from which introductionswere derived.
Clade VII consists of a single species, H. martini. Thisspecies was described from Zimbabwe and had since onlybeen reported from Africa (Ali et al., 1973; Marais, 1998).This species has a unique set of characteristics that placeit apart from all the other Helicotylenchus species. Adultsdo not have lip annuli and internal fasciculi are describedas present. Another interesting feature for females of thisspecies is the relatively long tail ranging from 17 to 49 µm(Van den Berg, 1978; Marais, 1998).
The results of the present study suggest that observedgenetic diversity of Helicotylenchus is significantly higherthan has been shown by morphological observations.Integration of morphological and morphometric studieswith molecular analyses may clarify the identification ofspecies within this complex genus. Molecular character-isation of Helicotylenchus species using analysis of theD2-D3 expansion segments of 28S rRNA gene sequencesand sequences of more variable genes, such as ITS-rRNAgene and coxI of mtDNA, can become an important stepin verification of identified samples and diagnostics of thespiral nematodes.
Fig. 2. Phylogenetic relationships within Helicotylenchus populations and species: Strict consensus of 1000 maximum parsimony treesas inferred from analysis of D2-D3 of 28 rRNA gene sequence alignment. (Tree length = 744; CI (excl. uninformative characters) =0.5045; HI (excl. uninformative characters) = 0.4955; RI = 0.8518; RC = 0.4763). Bootstrap values equal or more than 70% are givenfor appropriate clades. Numbers of apomorphies for a clade representing the same species are given in parentheses.
Vol. 13(3), 2011 343
S.A. Subbotin et al.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr R. Fortuner for valuable com-ments for improving of the manuscript draft. The first andlast authors acknowledge support of the US National Sci-ence Foundation PEET grant DEB-0731516.
References
ALI, S.S., GERAERT, E. & COOMANS, A. (1973). Some spiralnematodes from Africa. Biologische Jaarbücher Dodonaea41, 53-70.
ANDERSON, R.V. & EVELEIGH, E.S. (1982). Description ofHelicotylenchus amplius n. sp. and a key to the Canadianspecies of the genus (Nematoda: Hoplolaimidae). CanadianJournal of Zoology 60, 318-321.
BAE, C.H., SZALANSKI, A.L. & ROBBINS, R.T. (2008).Molecular analysis of the lance nematode, Hoplolaimus spp.,using the first internal transcribed spacer and the D1-D3expansion segments of 28S ribosomal DNA. Journal ofNematology 40, 201-209.
BAE, C.H., SZALANSKI, A.L. & ROBBINS, R.T. (2009). Phy-logenetic analysis of Hoplolaiminae inferred from combinedD2 and D3 expansion segments of 28S rDNA. Journal of Ne-matology 41, 28-34.
BOAG, B. & JAIRAJPURI, M.S. (1985). Helicotylenchus scoti-cus n. sp. and a conspectus of the genus HelicotylenchusSteiner, 1945 (Tylenchida: Nematoda). Systematic Parasito-logy 7, 47-58.
CHEN, D.Y., NI, H.F., CHEN, R.S., YEN, J.H. & TSAY,T.T. (2006). [Identification of spiral nematode (Nematoda:Rotylenchinae) collected from Taiwan and Kinmen.] PlantPathology Bulletin 15, 153-169.
DE LEY, P., TANDINGAN DE LEY, I., MORRIS, K., ABEBE,E., MUNDO-OCAMPO, M., YODER, M., HERAS, J., WAU-MANN, D., ROCHA-OLIVARES, A., BURR, A.H.J. ET AL.(2005). An integrated approach to fast and informative mor-phological vouchering of nematodes for applications in mole-cular barcoding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal So-ciety of London: Biological Sciences 360 (1462), 1945-1958.
DE WAELE, D. & ELSEN, A. (2007). Challenges in tropicalplant nematology. Annual Review of Phytopathology 45, 457-485.
EBSARY, B.A. (1991). Catalog of the order Tylenchida (Nema-toda). Ottawa, ON, Canada, Agriculture Canada, 196 pp.
ESSER, R.P. (1986). A water agar en face technique. Proceed-ings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 53, 254-255.
FIROZA, K. & MAQBOOL, M.A. (1994). A diagnostic com-pendium of the genus Helicotylenchus Steiner, 1945 (Nema-toda: Hoplolaimidae). Pakistan Journal of Nematology 12,11-50.
FORTUNER, R. (1979). Morphometrical variability in Helico-tylenchus Steiner, 1945. 1: The progeny of a single female.Revue de Nématologie 2, 197-202.
FORTUNER, R. (1984). Morphometrical variability in Helico-tylenchus Steiner, 1945. 6: Value of the characters used forspecies identification. Revue de Nématologie 7, 245-264.
FORTUNER, R. (1987). A reappraisal of Tylenchina (Nemata).8. The family Hoplolaimidae Filipjev, 1934. Revue de Néma-tologie 10, 219-232.
FORTUNER, R. (1991). The Hoplolaiminae. In: Nickle, W.R.(Ed.). Manual of agricultural nematology. New York, NY,USA, Marcel Dekker, pp. 669-719.
FORTUNER, R. & MAGGENTI, A. (1991). A statistical ap-proach to the objective differentiation of Hirschmanniellaoryzae from H. belli (Nemata: Pratylenchidae). Revue de Né-matologie 14, 165-180.
FORTUNER, R. & QUÉNÉHERVÉ, P. (1980). Morphometricalvariability in Helicotylenchus Steiner, 1945. 2: Influence ofthe host on H. dihystera (Cobb, 1893) Sher, 1961. Revue deNématologie 3, 291-296.
FORTUNER, R. & WONG, Y. (1984). Review of the genusHelicotylenchus Steiner, 1945. 1. A computer program foridentification of the species. Revue de Nématologie 7, 385-392.
FORTUNER, R., MERNY, G. & ROUX, C. (1981). Morphome-trical variability in Helicotylenchus Steiner, 1945. 3: Obser-vations on African populations of Helicotylenchus dihysteraand considerations on related species. Revue de Nématologie4, 235-260.
FORTUNER, R., MAGGENTI, A.R. & WHITTAKER, L.M.(1984). Morphometrical variability in HelicotylenchusSteiner, 1945. 4: Study of field populations of H. pseudoro-bustus and related species. Revue de Nématologie 7, 121-135.
HOLTERMAN, M., KARSSEN, G., VAN DEN ELSEN, S., VAN
MEGEN, H., BAKKER, J. & HELDER, J. (2009). Smallsubunit rDNA-based phylogeny of the tylenchids sheds lighton relationships among some high impact plant-parasiticnematodes and the evolution of plant feeding. Phytopathology99, 227-235.
HOOPER, D.J. (1986). Extraction of free-living stages fromsoil. In: Southey, J.F. (Ed.). Laboratory methods for workwith plant and soil nematodes. London, UK, Her Majesty’sStationery Office, pp. 5-30.
HUELSENBECK, J.P. & RONQUIST, F. (2001). MrBAYES:Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17,754-755.
KRALL, E.L. (1978). [Parasitic root nematodes. Family Hoplo-laimidae.] Leningrad, USSR, Nauka, 420 pp.
MARAIS, M. (1998). Some species of Helicotylenchus Steiner,1945 from South Africa (Nematoda: Hoplolaimidae). Funda-mental and Applied Nematology 21, 327-352.
MARAIS, M. (2001). A monograph of the genus Helicotylen-chus Steiner, 1945 (Nemata: Hoplolaimidae). Ph.D. Disserta-tion, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
344 Nematology
Diversity and phylogeny of Helicotylenchus
VAN MEGEN, H., VAN DEN ELSEN, S., HOLTERMAN, M.,KARSSEN, G., MOOYMAN, P., BONGERS, T., HOLOVA-CHOV, O., BAKKER, J. & HELDER, J. (2009). A phyloge-netic tree of nematodes based on about 1200 full-length smallsubunit ribosomal DNA sequences. Nematology 11, 927-950.
MCSORLEY, R. & PARRADO, J.L. (1986). Helicotylenchusmulticinctus on bananas, an international problem. Nematro-pica 16, 73-91.
NETSCHER, C. & SEINHORST, J.W. (1969). Propionic acidbetter than acetic acid for killing nematodes. Nematologica15, 286.
NORTON, D.C. (1977). Helicotylenchus pseudorobustus as apathogen of corn, and its densities on corn and soybean. IowaState Journal of Research 51, 279-285.
O’BANNON, J.H. & INSERRA, R.N. (1989). Helicotylenchusspecies as crop damaging parasitic nematodes. NematologyCircular 165, Florida Department of Agriculture and Con-sumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, 3 pp.
SAWADOGO, A., THIO, B., DRABO, I., DABIRE, C., OUE-DRAOGO, J., MULLENS, T.R., EHLERS, J.D. & ROBERTS,P.A. (2009). Distribution and prevalence of parasitic nema-todes of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in Burkina Faso. Jour-nal of Nematology 41, 120-127.
SHER, S.A. (1966). Revision of the Hoplolaiminae (Nematoda).VI. Helicotylenchus Steiner, 1945. Nematologica 12, 1-56.
SIDDIQI, M.R. (1972). On the genus Helicotylenchus Steiner,1945 (Nematoda: Tylenchida), with descriptions of nine newspecies. Nematologica 18, 74-91.
SIDDIQI, M.R. (1986). Tylenchida: parasites of plants andinsects. Farnham Royal, UK, Commonwealth AgriculturalBureaux, 645 pp.
SIDDIQI, M.R. (2000). Tylenchida: parasites of plants andinsects, 2nd edition. Wallingford, UK, CABI Publishing,833 pp.
SITES, J.W. & MARSHALL, J.C. (2004). Operational criteriafor delimiting species. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolutionand Systematics 35, 199-227.
SUBBOTIN, S.A., STURHAN, D., CHIZHOV, V.N., VOVLAS,N. & BALDWIN, J.G. (2006). Phylogenetic analysis of Ty-lenchida Thorne, 1949 as inferred from D2 and D3 expansionfragments of the 28S rRNA gene sequences. Nematology 8,455-474.
SUBBOTIN, S.A., STURHAN, D., VOVLAS, N., CASTILLO,P., TANYI TAMBE, J., MOENS, M. & BALDWIN, J.G.(2007). Application of secondary structure model of rRNA
for phylogeny: D2-D3 expansion segments of the LSU geneof plant-parasitic nematodes from the family HoplolaimidaeFilipjev, 1934. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 43,881-890.
SWOFFORD, D.L. (2003). PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis usingparsimony (*and other methods), version 4.0b 10. Sunder-land, MA, USA, Sinauer Associates.
TANHA MAAFI, Z., SUBBOTIN, S.A. & MOENS, M. (2003).Molecular identification of cyst-forming nematodes (Het-eroderidae) from Iran and a phylogeny based on ITS-rDNAsequences. Nematology 5, 99-111.
TAYLOR, D.P. (1961). Biology and host-parasite relationshipsof the spiral nematode, Helicotylenchus microlobus. Proceed-ings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 28, 60-66.
THOMPSON, J.D., GIBSON, T.J., PLEWNIAK, F., JEANMOU-GIN, F. & HIGGINS, D.G. (1997). The CLUSTAL_X win-dows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence align-ment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Research25, 4876-4882.
VAN DEN BERG, E. (1978). On some Helicotylenchus and Roty-lenchus species from South Africa (Nematoda). Phytophylac-tica 10, 7-12.
VAN DEN BERG, E., MARAIS, M., GAIDASHOVA, S. &TIEDT, L.R. (2003). Hoplolaimidae Filip’ev, 1934 (Nemata)from Rwandan banana fields. African Plant Protection 9, 31-42.
VOVLAS, N., SUBBOTIN, S.A., TROCCOLI, A., LIEBANAS,G. & CASTILLO, P. (2008). Molecular phylogeny of thegenus Rotylenchus (Nematoda, Tylenchida) and descriptionof a new species. Zoologica Scripta 37, 521-537.
VOVLAS, N., TROCCOLI, A. & RODRIGUES, C. (1995). Sup-plemental female morphology and male description of Heli-cotylenchus variocaudatus from banana roots. NematologiaMediterranea 23, 93-99.
WHITEHEAD, A.G. (1958). Rotylenchoides brevis n. g., n. sp.(Rotylenchoidinae n. subfamily: Tylenchida). Nematologica3, 327-331.
WOUTS, W.M. & YEATES, G.W. (1994). Helicotylenchusspecies (Nematoda: Tylenchida) from native vegetation andundisturbed soils in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal ofZoology 21, 213-224.
YEATES, G.W. & WOUTS, W.M. (1992). Helicotylenchus spp.(Nematoda: Tylenchida) from managed soils in New Zealand.New Zealand Journal of Zoology 19, 13-23.
Vol. 13(3), 2011 345
top related