Iophenoxic Acid as a Long-Term Marker for Wild Boar

ABSTRACT Chemical markers are increasingly used to investigate consumption of baits used to deliver vaccines, toxicants, and contraceptives. We evaluated whether ethyl-iophenoxic acid (Et-IPA) and propyl-iophenoxic acid (Pr-IPA) can be used as long-lasting systemic bait markers for wild boar (Sus scrofa). We presented captive wild boar with baits treated with either Et-IPA or Pr-IPA at 5 mg/kg (low dose), 10 mg/kg (medium dose), and 20 mg/kg (high dose) of body weight. We collected serum from each boar at 5 time points: 5 days, 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 11 weeks, and 39 weeks following ingestion of iophenoxic acid-treated baits. We detected both Et-IPA and Pr-IPA for ≥39 weeks after ingestion. Throughout the trial, the Et-IPA we found in serum was proportional to the amount eaten. At each time point, animals in the high-dose group had significantly more Et-IPA than animals in the low-dose group. We concluded that both compounds can be used as long-lasting markers in wild boar and that Et-IPA can also be employed as quantitative marker to indicate multiple bait uptake. Both compounds have potential applications in the context of vaccination, fertility, and population control campaigns, where baits are used to deliver pharmaceuticals, and in behavioral studies to establish spatial and temporal patterns of bait uptake.     

Integrative taxonomy,or iterative taxonomy?

The recently introduced term ‘integrative taxonomy’ refers to taxonomy that integrates all available data sources to frame species limits. We survey current taxonomic methods available to delimit species that integrate a variety of data, including molecular and morphological characters. A literature review of empirical studies using the term ‘integrative taxonomy’ assessed the kinds of data being used to frame species limits, and methods of integration. Almost all studies are qualitative and comparative – we are a long way from a repeatable, quantitative method of truly ‘integrative taxonomy’. The usual methods for integrating data in phylogenetic and population genetic paradigms are not appropriate for integrative taxonomy, either because of the diverse range of data used or because of the special challenges that arise when working at the species/population boundary. We identify two challenges that, if met, will facilitate the development of a more complete toolkit and a more robust research programme in integrative taxonomy using species tree approaches. We propose the term ‘iterative taxonomy’ for current practice that treats species boundaries as hypotheses to be tested with new evidence. A search for biological or evolutionary explanations for discordant evidence can be used to distinguish between competing species boundary hypotheses. We identify two recent empirical examples that use the process of iterative taxonomy.     

Phylogeny and evolution of Staphyliniformia and Scarabaeiformia: forest litter as a stepping stone for diversification of nonphytophagous beetles

The beetle series Staphyliniformia exhibits extraordinary taxonomic, ecological and morphological diversity. To gain further insight into staphyliniform relationships and evolution, we reconstructed the phylogeny of Staphyliniformia using DNA sequences from nuclear 28S rDNA and the nuclear protein‐coding gene CAD for 282 species representing all living families and most subfamilies, a representative sample of Scarabaeiformia serving as a near outgroup, and three additional beetles as more distant outgroups. Under both Bayesian inference (BI) and maximum likelihood inference (MLI), the major taxa within Staphyliniformia are each monophyletic: (i) Staphylinoidea, (ii) Hydrophiloidea s.l., and the contained superfamilies (iii) Hydrophiloidea s.s. and (iv) Histeroidea, although Staphylinoidea and Hydrophiloidea s.l. are not strongly supported by MLI bootstrap. Scarabaeiformia is monophyletic under both methods of phylogenetic inference. However, the relative relationships of Staphylinoidea, Hydrophiloidea s.l. and Scarabaeiformia differ between BI and MLI: under BI, Staphyliniformia and Scarabaeiformia were sister groups; under MLI, Hydrophiloidea s.l. and Scarabaeiformia were sister groups and these together were sister to Staphylinoidea. The internal relationships in Scarabaeiformia were similar under both methods of phylogenetic inference, with Cetoniinae, Dynastinae + Rutelinae, Hybosoridae, Passalidae, Scarabaeidae and Scarabaeinae recovered as monophyla. Histeridae comprised two major clades: (1) Abraeinae, Trypanaeine and Trypeticinae; and (2) Chlamydopsinae, Dendrophilinae, Haeteriinae, Histerinae, Onthophilinae, Saprininae and Tribalinae. The relationships among early‐divergent Hydrophiloidea differed between BI and MLI, and overall were unresolved or received only moderate to low nodal support. The staphylinoid families Agyrtidae, Hydraenidae and Ptiliidae were recovered as monophyletic; the latter two were sister taxa, and Staphylinidae + Silphidae was also monophyletic. Silphidae was placed within Staphylinidae in close relation to a subset of Tachyporinae. Pselaphinae and Scydmaeninae were both recovered within Staphylinidae, in accordance with recent analyses of morphological characters, although not always with recently proposed sister taxa. None of the four major groups of Staphylinidae proposed by Lawrence and Newton (1982) was recovered as monophyletic. Certain highly specialized staphyliniform habits and morphologies, such as abdominal defensive glands and reduced elytra, have arisen in parallel in separate lineages. Further, our analyses support two major transitions to an aquatic lifestyle within Staphyliniformia: once within Staphylinoidea (Hydraenidae), and once within Hydrophiloidea s.l. (Hydrophiloidea s.s.). On a smaller scale, the most common transition is from litter to subcortical or to periaquatic microhabitats and the next most common is from litter to carrion and to fungi. Overall, transitions to periaquatic microhabitats were the most numerous. The broad picture in Staphyliniformia seems to be a high level of evolutionary plasticity, with multiple possible pathways to and from many microhabitat associations, and litter as a major source microhabitat for diversification. In Scarabaeiformia, the most common transitions were from litter to foliage, with flowers to litter, litter to flowers, and litter to dung being next, and then litter to roots, logs or carrion. Litter is again the largest overall source microhabitat. The most common transitions were to foliage and flowers. It thus seems that the litter environment presents ecological and evolutionary opportunities/challenges that facilitate entry of Staphyliniformia and Scarabaeiformia into ‘new’ and different ecological adaptive zones.