The PGI enzyme system and fitness response to temperature as a measure of environmental tolerance in an invasive species

PeerJ. 2014 Nov 25:2:e676. doi: 10.7717/peerj.676. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

In the field of invasion ecology, the determination of a species' environmental tolerance, is a key parameter in the prediction of its potential distribution, particularly in the context of global warming. In poikilothermic species such as insects, temperature is often considered the most important abiotic factor that affects numerous life-history and fitness traits through its effect on metabolic rate. Therefore the response of an insect to challenging temperatures may provide key information as to its climatic and therefore spatial distribution. Variation in the phosphoglucose-6-isomerase (PGI) metabolic enzyme-system has been proposed in some insects to underlie their relative fitness, and is recognised as a key enzyme in their thermal adaptation. However, in this context it has not been considered as a potential mechanism contributing to a species invasive cability. The present study aimed to compare the thermal tolerance of an invasive scarabaeid beetle, Costelytra zealandica (White) with that of the closely related, and in part sympatrically occurring, congeneric non-invasive species C. brunneum (Broun), and to consider whether any correlation with particular PGI genotypes was apparent. Third instar larvae of each species were exposed to one of three different temperatures (10, 15 and 20 °C) over six weeks and their fitness (survival and growth rate) measured and PGI phenotyping performed via cellulose acetate electrophoresis. No consistent relationship between PGI genotypes and fitness was detected, suggesting that PGI may not be contributing to the invasion success and pest status of C. zealandica.

Keywords: Cellulose acetate; Costelytra; Electrophoresis; Native invader; Scarab larvae; Sympatric species.

Grants and funding

Financial support was provided by the Miss EL Hellaby Indigenous Grasslands Research Trust, Better Border Biosecurity and the Bio-Protection Research Centre. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.