Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hxdxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T13:43:45.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Molecular, morphometric and digital automated identification of three Diaphorina species (Hemiptera: Liviidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2021

Mohammadreza Lashkari*
Affiliation:
Department of Biodiversity, Institute of Science and High Technology and Environmental Sciences, Graduate University of Advanced Technology, Kerman, Iran
Daniel Burckhardt
Affiliation:
Naturhistorisches Museum, Augustinergasse 2, 4001 Basel, Switzerland
Shima Kashef
Affiliation:
Vajeh Intelligent Systems Research Group, Kerman, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Mohammadreza Lashkari, Email: m.lashkari@kgut.ac.ir; mr.lashkari@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diaphorina is a species-rich genus, native to the tropics and subtropics of the Old World, particularly of more arid regions. One of the species, Diaphorina citri, is the economically most important pest of citrus. Diaphorina species are morphologically similar which makes their identification difficult. In this study, the accuracy of DNA barcoding, using mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (COI), geometric morphometrics of the forewing and digital image processing methods were tested for identification of the three Diaphorina species: D. chobauti, D. citri and D. zygophylli. Moreover, the published COI sequences of D. citri, D. communis and D. lycii obtained from Genbank were used for cluster analyses. DNA barcodes for D. chobauti and D. zygophylli are deposited in Genbank for the first time. The results of the molecular and geometric morphometric analyses are congruent and place D. chobauti as the sister taxon of the other Diaphorina species. The geometric morphometric analysis shows that in D. zygophylli the fore margin is slightly curved proximally and sharply bent distally, while in D. chobauti and D. citri it is straight proximally and weakly bent distally. The results of digital image processing show that the distribution of the dark pattern differs consistently in the three studied species.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Psylloidea (Hemiptera) or jumping plant-lice with about 4000 described species worldwide contain some economically important pests in agriculture and forestry. Psyllids can lower crop yield by direct feeding and by transmitting agents of plant diseases (Burckhardt, Reference Burckhardt1994; Burckhardt and Ouvrard, Reference Burckhardt and Ouvrard2012). One of the most important citrus pests is the Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri Kuwayama, 1908 that acts as a vector of Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus, the pathogenic bacteria causing HLB ( = Huanglongbing or citrus greening disease) (Halbert and Manjunath, Reference Halbert and Manjunath2004; Gottwald, Reference Gottwald2010; Grafton-Cardwell et al., Reference Grafton-Cardwell, Stelinski and Stansly2013; Hall et al., Reference Hall, Richardson, Ammar and Halbert2013). The potential arrival of exotic insects is closely monitored in some countries as these can become economically important pests (Bové et al., Reference Bové, Danet, Bananej, Hassanzadeh, Taghizadeh, Salehi and Garnier2000; Tsai and Liu, Reference Tsai and Liu2000; French et al., Reference French, Kahlke and Da Graça2001; Halbert and Núñez, Reference Halbert and Núñez2004; Martoni et al., Reference Martoni, Bulman, Pitman, Taylor and Armstrong2018).

Diaphorina Löw, 1879, comprises 76 described species in the Old World (Ouvrard, Reference Ouvrard2019). The genus is particularly species-rich in more arid regions of the Palearctic, Afrotropical and Oriental zoogeographical realms (Burckhardt, Reference Burckhardt1985). Many constituent species are heavily pigmented and morphologically similar, making their identification difficult (Burckhardt, Reference Burckhardt1985; Hollis, Reference Hollis1987). In contrast to other psyllid groups, the male terminalia are fairly uniform and provide often few good characters for species identification. The shape of the genal processes and the female terminalia, as well as forewing shape and pattern, are used in species identification (Burckhardt, Reference Burckhardt1985). From the Kerman Province, Iran, the following five Diaphorina species have been reported: D. chobauti Puton, 1898, developing on Convolvulus L., D. citri on Citrus L., D. luteola Loginova, 1978 on Solanum L., D. lycii Loginova, 1978 on Lycium L. and D. zygophylli Loginova, 1978 on Zygophyllum L. The species are morphologically similar and difficult to identify.

DNA barcoding can be an effective method and a standard tool for species identification (Hebert et al., Reference Hebert, Ratnasingham and deWaard2003b). The 5′ half of the cytochrome oxidase 1 (COI) gene has been used as the barcode locus for most animals in DNA barcoding (Hebert et al., Reference Hebert, Cywinska, Ball and deWaard2003a). The approach has been successfully applied to several groups of psyllids (Percy et al., Reference Percy, Butterill and Malenovský2016; Percy, Reference Percy2017; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Fagan-Jeffries and Austin2016; Martoni et al., Reference Martoni, Bulman, Pitman, Taylor and Armstrong2018; Lashkari et al., Reference Lashkari, Shamsi Gushki and Mirzaei2019; Cho et al., Reference Cho, Malenovsý, Burckhardt, Inoue and Lee2020; Lashkari et al., Reference Lashkari, Burckhardt and Shamsi Gushki2020). The barcode locus used for psyllids is short (typically 472 bp), easy to amplify and it can be successfully sequenced even when the DNA is fairly degraded and fragmented.

Morphometrics is a useful method for analyzing shape and addressing a wide range of questions including evaluating phenetic differences between taxa (e.g., Burckhardt and Basset, Reference Burckhardt and Basset2000; Serbina et al., Reference Serbina, Burckhardt, Birkhofer, Syfert and Halbert2015; Serbina and Mennecart, Reference Serbina and Mennecart2018; Shamsi Gushki et al., Reference Shamsi Gushki, Lashkari and Mirzaei2018; Lashkari et al., Reference Lashkari, Burckhardt and Shamsi Gushki2020). In geometric morphometrics, the shape is usually conceptualized and has been defined as those components of form which remain after removing the size (Kendall, Reference Kendall1977; MacLeod, Reference MacLeod2017).

Digital image processing can be a useful and informative method for species identification. This method performs some operations on an image, in order to get an enhanced image or to extract useful information (Chanda and Majumder, Reference Chanda and Majumder2011). Although the progress in designing and implementing workable systems for automated identification is slow, there are several examples of this method from insects using the wings (Weeks et al., Reference Weeks, Gauld, Gaston and O'Neill1997; Watson et al., Reference Watson, O'Neill and Kitching2004; Crnojević et al., Reference Crnojević, Panić, Brkljač, Ćulibrk, Ačanski and Vujić2014) or the body shape (Umar et al., Reference Umar, Abbas and Gulzar2017). The method was also applied to flatworms (Platyhelminthes) (Leow et al., Reference Leow, Chew, Chong and Dhillon2015) and copepods (Kalafi et al., Reference Kalafi, Tan, Town and Dhillon2016) using the body shape.

As the identification of Diaphorina species is difficult for the non-specialist with traditional morphological comparison, we examine here three methods for species discrimination and compare their results: (1) cytochrome oxidase 1 (COI) sequences as DNA barcodes to discriminate the three Diaphorina species from Kerman, (2) geometric morphometrics of their forewings to define which morphometric characters are diagnostic, and (3) digital image processing to automate the identification of the studied species.

Materials and methods

Sample collection

Adult psyllids were collected in the Kerman province, Iran, during 2017 (table 1). Additionally, 15 COI sequences of Diaphorina species from GenBank were included in a cluster analysis. The collected adults were transferred to 95% ethanol and stored at 20°C. Species identification was done by the second author comparing with specimens from the collection of the Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, Switzerland.

Table 1. Details of the specimens used for molecular, morphometric and automated identification of the three Diaphorina species

Geometric morphometric study

A total of 97 right forewings of females, belonging to the three Diaphorina species were used for geometric morphometrics (table 1). The forewings were mounted on microscopic slides in Canada balsam and images were captured at 40 times magnification with a digital camera mounted on a microscope. The forewing images were first processed by the tpsUtill programme (Rohlf, Reference Rohlf2019a), then a total of 19 landmarks, including 13 homologous landmarks (1–4, 6–9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18) and six semi landmarks (5, 10, 12, 14, 17 and 19) were digitized at vein intersections or tip of the veins or vein margins by the tpsDig2 programme (fig. 1) (Rohlf, Reference Rohlf2017). To increase accuracy in semi landmark selection, two parallel lines were drawn and spots were chosen with the most significant convexity (fig. 1).

Figure 1. (a) Position of landmarks (circles) and semi landmarks (triangle) on the left forewing of Diaphorina citri. (b, c and d) forewings of D. citri, D. chobauti and D. zygophylli, respectively.

The coordinates of the landmarks obtained from tpsDig2 were used in the tpsRelw programme (Rohlf, Reference Rohlf2019b) to perform the procedure of geometric morphometric analysis (alignment and superimposition). The consensus shape was subtracted and maximal shape variation was shown along the first two relative-warp axes (RW1 and RW2). After that, the shape variables, Weight Matrix, were subjected to multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to compare forewing shapes among the three species, using the SAS statistical programme. Differences in forewing shape among the three species were visualized by deformation grids using the tpsRelw programme (thin plate splines). To construct a dendrogram, an unweighted pair group method analysis (UPGMA) was performed on squared Mahalanobis distances using the NTSYSpc programme (Rohlf, Reference Rohlf2000). The size of each forewing specimen was calculated based on the centroid sizes (CS; the square root of the sum of squared distances between each landmark and the wing centroid) (Zelditch et al., Reference Zelditch, Swiderski and Sheets2012). CS was calculated using the tpsRelw programme (Rohlf, Reference Rohlf2019a, Reference Rohlf2019b) and processed by one-way analysis of variance procedures (ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's HSD test) in the SAS statistical programme.

Molecular study

DNA was extracted using DNA Extraction Kit DNPTM (SinaClon, Iran) according to the manufacturer's instructions. COI was partially amplified as DNA barcodes in a TAdvanced 96 SG thermocycler (Biometra GmbH, Germany), under the following cycling conditions (Percy et al., Reference Percy, Butterill and Malenovský2016): 94°C for 3 min, followed by 40 cycles of 92°C for 30 s, annealing at 50°C for 40 s and 72°C for 1 min, followed by a final extension time of 10 min at 72°C. The COI sequence was amplified with primers C1-J-1718 (5′ GGA GGA TTT GGA AAT TGA TTA GTT CC 3′) and C1-N-2191 (5′ CCC GGT AAA ATT AAA ATA TAA ACT TC 3′) that can make a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) product with about 472 bp in length (Simon et al., Reference Simon, Frati, Beckenbach, Crespi, Liu and Floors1994; Percy et al., Reference Percy, Butterill and Malenovský2016). The used primers were synthesized at Macrogen Inc. (Seoul, South Korea). Positive and negative controls were included to ensure the consistency of the results. PCR products were visualized on a 1.2% agarose gel, in TAE buffer (pH 8.0) at 80 V for 1 h to check the success of the PCR amplification. Purification and sequencing were performed at the Macrogen Inc. (Seoul, South Korea). All alignments were edited to remove ambiguous bases and primer sequences using software BioEdit version 7.2.6. After that, sequences were aligned using ClustalW in software MEGA X (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Stecher, Li, Knyaz and Tamura2018). Each obtained sequence was compared to sequences in GenBank using BLAST and sequences of D. citri, D. communis and D. lycii were included in cluster analyses (figs 7 and 8). The gene tree was constructed using the parsimony method in PAUP* 4.0a133 (Swofford, Reference Swofford2002). The DNA sequences are deposited in GenBank under accession numbers MT296823–MT296838. Pariaconus ohiacola (Crawford, 1918) (Hemiptera: Triozidae) (sequence in GenBank: accession number KY294469.1) was chosen as the out-group for the gene tree analyses.

Digital image processing

Digital image processing consists of two phases; the pre-processing phase and the classification phase in which the image is classified into one of the three types of species (D. chobauti, D. citri and D. zygophylli). In the first phase, several image processing tools are employed to enhance the quality of the images and to extract the important attributes, such as the colour pattern on the wing and geometric shapes. The most important step in the pre-processing phase is separating the foreground (wing) from the background. Since the transparency of the wings is high, it is difficult to separate them from the background. At the end of the pre-processing stage, the image is fed into the classification phase. Classification of wings is done in the same manner as an expert does, i.e. important features which are specific to each wing are extracted, and species are classified based on these features. These steps are explained in more details in the next subsection.

Pre-processing phase

In the pre-processing phase, the following steps are performed. Firstly, the RGB image is transformed into a grayscale image. Then, Sobel operator is performed on the grayscale image to acquire the edges of the wing. By doing this, the wing stands out from the background. In the next step, a morphological dilation operator is applied to the resulting image. Dilation is one of the two basic operators (dilation and erosion) in the area of mathematical morphology. It is usually applied to binary images, but there are versions that work on grayscale images.

Morphological transformation needs two inputs: the original image and a structuring element or kernel which decides the nature of operation (Raid et al., Reference Raid, Khedr, El-dosuky and Aoud2014). The basic effect of the dilation operator on a binary image is to gradually enlarge the boundaries of regions of foreground (i.e. typically white pixels). Therefore, areas of foreground pixels grow in size while holes within those regions become smaller. After removing small connected components (white pixels which are connected to each other) of the resulting image, the remaining white pixels are connected to each other so that a convex hull is created. This convex object specifies the boundaries of the wing. In the next step, image skew should be detected and corrected. To find the right direction, the images are rotated in such a way that the major axis falls on the horizontal line. Now, this image can be used as a mask to extract the foreground (wing) from the background. Finally, the resulting image is binarized using the Otsu global binarization method. Otsu's method tries to find a threshold in the image histogram that binarizes the image into two classes, the background and the foreground (Kashef et al., Reference Kashef, Nezamabadi-Pour and Rashedi2018). Figure 2 shows the steps described above.

Figure 2. Preprocessing steps: (a) original image; (b) grayscale image; (c) edge detected images using Sobel operator; (d) image dilation; (e) removal of small connected components; (f) convex hull of image in stage e; (g) skew correction (mask); (h) extract wing using the mask; (i) binarization.

Classification phase

In this phase, the wing images are assigned to one of the three studied species. By comparing the sum of white pixels in the wings, the species can be distinguished with high accuracy. As the images are captured in the same condition, the size of the wings can be used as a discriminant feature for classification. Therefore, after the colour pattern of the wings, the size was also checked. Analyses were performed with the Matlab software version R2018a. One-way analysis of variance procedures (ANOVA) and pairwise tests were applied, with post hoc Tukey's HSD test, in the SAS statistical programme.

Results

Geometric morphometric study

The MANOVA clearly showed that differences in the forewing were highly significant among the studied species (Wilks' Lambda = 0.01077021, F = 36.94, P < 0.001). The first 2 relative warps (RW1 and RW2) exhibited 28.88% and 17.01% of the total variation. The shape characters separate D. chobauti from D. citri as well as D. chobauti from D. zygophylli along RW1, whereas D. citri is separated from D. zygophylli along RW2. The position of each specimen is shown along the relative warps’ axis (fig. 3). The wing shapes were visualized by the TPS analysis. The TPS analysis showed that the shape deformations were mainly derived from the middle of the wing (landmarks 5, 7, 9, 12 and 13). The superimposed landmark configurations are shown in fig. 4a and the superimposed forewing shapes in fig. 4b. In the cluster analysis, the three species formed two groups: D. citri + D. zygophylli and D. chobauti (fig. 5). The forewing size comparison showed significant differences between some species (F = 200.43, P < 0.0001). Forewing size (CS) differed significantly between D. chobauti + D. citri (smaller) and D. zygophylli (larger) (fig. 6), but not between D. chobauti and D. citri.

Figure 3. Scatter plot for the RW1 and RW2 on the forewing of the three Diaphorina species. Circle: D. citri; square: D. chobauti; pentagon: D. zygophylli.

Figure 4. (a) Superimposed landmark configurations and (b) superimposed forewing shapes of the three Diaphorina species: D. citri ………, D. chobauti ––––– and D. zygophylli - - - -.

Figure 5. Phenogram plotted by UPGMA method based on the generalized distance matrix in three psyllid species of the genus Diaphorina.

Figure 6. Forewing size (centroid size) comparison in the three Diaphorina species.

Molecular study

The COI barcode sequences of the three species were successfully amplified. For the clustering analyses, sequences from GenBank of two additional species, viz. Diaphorina communis Mathur, 1975 and D. lycii, were included (figs 7 and 8). The two species were chosen as their sequences are similar to the other three species. No intraspecific genetic difference was found between individuals within the three studied species. The number of base substitutions per site (p-distance) between D. chobauti and D. citri is 0.244, and that between D. citri and D. zygophylli 0.103 (table 2). The three studied species formed separate groups in the clustering analyses (fig. 7).

Figure 7. COI gene tree of the three Diaphorina species. The scale bar shows 10 changes. Bootstrap support values are indicated above the nodes.

Figure 8. Diaphorina spp. (a, b) D. chobauti; (c, d) D. citri; (e, f) D. communis; (g, h) D. lycii, (i, j) D. zygophylli. (a, c, e, g, i): habitus; (b, d, f, h, j): head, dorsal view.

Table 2. Pairwise distance between Diaphorina chobauti, D. citri and D. zygophylli. Upper matrix, Molecular; Lower matrix, Morphometric

Digital image processing

The ratio of white to black pixels in some parts of the wing is shown in table 3. The proposed method based on image processing for classifying the three studied species was executed with 49 microscopic images. The images were split randomly into two sets, the training set and the test set, with 80/20 ratio. The accuracy of our model which is simulated by the Matlab software was 100%, i.e. all test samples were classified correctly. The results showed that in D. citri, the dark pattern spreads over areas along the anterior and posterior wing margins with a gap in the apical part of cell r 1. In D. chobauti, the dark pattern is similar but with an additional gap in cell m 2 in addition to that in cell r 1. In D. zygophylli, the dark spots are spread mostly over the apical third of the wing.

Table 3. Ratio of white to black pixels in the forewing of Diaphorina chobauti, D. citri and D. zygophylli.

Means with the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05).

Discussion

Although geometric morphometrics has been used to separate species in different taxa, including Hemiptera (Shamsi Gushki et al., Reference Shamsi Gushki, Lashkari and Mirzaei2018; Lashkari et al., Reference Lashkari, Burckhardt and Shamsi Gushki2020), it has not been applied to Diaphorina, a psyllid genus with morphologically similar species that are notoriously difficult to identify. The forewing shape of many Diaphorina species is oblong oval, widening toward the apical quarter as in the three studied species. In D. zygophylli, the fore margin is slightly curved proximally and sharply bent distally, while in D. chobauti and D. citri it is straight proximally and weakly bent distally. The TPS analysis also showed that forewings of D. chobauti are narrower than those of the other two species, as well as the angle of the junction of veins M and Cu as well as R and M + Cu is smaller than those in the other two species, therefore the perpendicular distance between the veins is shorter than in the other two species. D. citri and D. zygophylli share a similar forewing width. Based on the morphometric data, the best characters separating the three species are found in the middle portion of the forewing, related to the veins Rs, M and C + Sc. Similar good results using geometric morphometrics for separating morphologically close species in the psyllid genera Psyllopsis Löw, 1879, and Agonoscena Enderlein, 1914, were obtained by Shamsi Gushki et al. (Reference Shamsi Gushki, Lashkari and Mirzaei2018) and Lashkari et al. (Reference Lashkari, Burckhardt and Shamsi Gushki2020).

A suitable genetic marker for species identification must be (1) a conserved region, (2) short enough to be sequenced in a single reaction and (3) contain enough variability to be informative for species identification (Nicolas et al., Reference Nicolas, Schaeffer, Missoup, Kennis, Colyn, Denys, Tatard, Cruaud and Laredo2012). In many insect groups, the COI gene serves as a good standard for barcodes (Hebert et al., Reference Hebert, Penton, Burns, Janzen and Hallwachs2004a, Reference Hebert, Stoeckle, Zemlak and Francis2004b; Hajibabaei et al., Reference Hajibabaei, Janzen, Burns, Hallwachs and Hebert2006; Ashfaq et al., Reference Ashfaq, Hebert, Mirza, Khan, Zafar and Mirza2014a, Reference Ashfaq, Hebert, Mirza, Khan, Mansoor, Shah and Zafar2014b, Reference Ashfaq, Prosser, Nasir, Masood, Ratnasingham and Hebert2015). The primers used in the current study showed their effectiveness for the studied species and were also successfully applied in other studies on Psylloidea (Percy et al., Reference Percy, Butterill and Malenovský2016; Lashkari et al., Reference Lashkari, Shamsi Gushki and Mirzaei2019, Reference Lashkari, Burckhardt and Shamsi Gushki2020). Although the climatic conditions vary between the collection sites, no intraspecific genetic difference was found between populations and individuals of each studied species, including all Iranian geographic populations of D. citri. On the other hand, Lashkari et al. (Reference Lashkari, Manzari, Sahragard, Malagnini, Boykin and Hosseini2014) showed differences between populations of D. citri from Iran and Pakistan. Boykin et al. (Reference Boykin, De Barro, Hall, Hunter, McKenzie, Powell and Shatters2012) found eight COI haplotypes of D. citri among 52 collections worldwide. They used a novel COI primer in their analysis, which is different from the standard location of the DNA barcoding site. Therefore, regarding the positive features of the primers used in Percy's study (Percy et al., Reference Percy, Butterill and Malenovský2016), a new study of worldwide collections of D. citri should be performed for understanding better how to select suitable primers. Based on the cluster analysis, our molecular data support the results of morphometric analysis. Of the 76 described Diaphorina species worldwide, eight species have been reported from Iran, i.e. D. aegyptiaca Puton, 1892, D. chobauti, D. enormis Loginova, 1978, D. luteola, D. lycii, D. tamaricis Loginova, 1978, D. zygophylli (Burckhardt and Lauterer, Reference Burckhardt and Lauterer1993) and D. citri (Bové et al., Reference Bové, Danet, Bananej, Hassanzadeh, Taghizadeh, Salehi and Garnier2000). Of these, the following five species were reported from Kerman province: D. chobauti, D. citri, D. luteola, D. lycii and D. zygophylli. Except for D. citri which is a major pest in Iran, little is known about the occurrence and distribution of Diaphorina species in Iran. Based on the current knowledge, it seems that after D. citri, D. chobauti is the most widely distributed species in the Kerman Province.

In D. zygophylli, the fore margin of the forewing is relatively curved proximally, sharply bent distally and the colour pattern covers mostly the apical third of the wing. D. chobauti and D. citri possess similar forewing features, i.e, the fore margin is straight proximally, slightly bent distally and the dark pattern covers areas along the anterior and posterior wing margins. In D. citri, the colour pattern displays a gap in cell r 1, whereas, in D. chobauti, the colour pattern has gaps in cell r 1 and m 2. In this study, we show that the combination of three methods, molecular analyses, geometric morphometrics and digital image processing, can be very helpful in species identification.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr Liliya Serbina and an anonymous reviewer for useful suggestions on a previous manuscript draft, as well as Dr Azadeh Habibi for technical advice. The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support by the Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) under grant number 51586 and by the Institute of Science and High Technology and Environmental Sciences, Graduate University of Advanced Technology, Kerman, Iran, under grant number 96/3318.

References

Ashfaq, M, Hebert, PD, Mirza, JH, Khan, AM, Zafar, Y and Mirza, MS (2014a) Analyzing mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) diversity in Pakistan by DNA barcoding, PLoS One 9, e97268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashfaq, M, Hebert, PD, Mirza, MS, Khan, AM, Mansoor, S, Shah, GS and Zafar, Y (2014b) DNA barcoding of Bemisia tabaci complex (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) reveals southerly expansion of the dominant whitefly species on cotton in Pakistan. PLoS One 9, e104485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashfaq, M, Prosser, S, Nasir, S, Masood, M, Ratnasingham, S and Hebert, PD (2015) High diversity and rapid diversification in the head louse, Pediculus humanus (Pediculidae: Phthiraptera). Scientific Reports 5, 14188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bové, JM, Danet, JL, Bananej, K, Hassanzadeh, N, Taghizadeh, M, Salehi, M and Garnier, M (2000) Witches broom disease of lime (WBDL) in Iran. Proceedings of 14th Conference of International Organization of Citrus Virologists, Riverside, California, 207‒212.Google Scholar
Boykin, LM, De Barro, P, Hall, DG, Hunter, WB, McKenzie, CL, Powell, CA, and Shatters, RG (2012). Overview of worldwide diversity of Diaphorina citri Kuwayama mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase 1 haplotypes: two Old World lineages and a New World invasion. Bulletin of Entomological Research 17, 110.Google Scholar
Burckhardt, D (1985) The Mediterranean species of Diaphorina Loew (Homoptera, Psylloidea). Phytophaga 2, 130.Google Scholar
Burckhardt, D (1994) Psyllid pests of temperate and subtropical crop and ornamental plants (Hemiptera, Psylloidea): a review. Trends in agricultural sciences. Entomology 2, 173186.Google Scholar
Burckhardt, D and Basset, Y (2000) The jumping plant-lice (Hemiptera, Psylloidea) associated with Schinus (Anacardiaceae): systematics, biogeography and host plant relationships. Journal of Natural History 34, 57155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burckhardt, D and Lauterer, P (1993) The jumping plant-lice of Iran (Homoptera, Psylloidea). Revue Suisse de Zoologie 100, 829898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burckhardt, D and Lauterer, P (1993) The jumping plant-lice of Iran (Homoptera, Psylloidea). Revue suisse de Zoologie 100, 829898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burckhardt, D and Ouvrard, D (2012) A revised classification of the jumping plant-lice (Hemiptera: Psylloidea). Zootaxa 3509, 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chanda, B and Majumder, DD (2011) Digital image processing and analysis, Prentice Hall of India.Google Scholar
Cho, G, Malenovsý, I, Burckhardt, D, Inoue, H and Lee, S (2020) DNA Barcoding of pear psyllids (Hemiptera: Psylloidea: Psyllidae), a tale of continued misidentifications. Bulletin of Entomological Research 110, 521534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crnojević, V, Panić, M, Brkljač, B, Ćulibrk, D, Ačanski, J and Vujić, A (2014) Image processing method for automatic discrimination of hoverfly species. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2014, 986271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, JV, Kahlke, CJ and Da Graça, JV (2001) First record of the Asian citrus psylla, Diaphorina citri Kuwayama (Homoptera: Psyllidae), in Texas. Subtropical Plant Science 53, 1415.Google Scholar
Gottwald, TR (2010) Current epidemiological understanding of citrus Huanglongbing. Annual Review of Phytopathology 48, 119139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafton-Cardwell, EE, Stelinski, LL and Stansly, PA (2013) Biology and management of Asian citrus psyllid, vector of the Huanglongbing pathogens. Annual Review of Entomology 58, 413432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajibabaei, M, Janzen, DH, Burns, JM, Hallwachs, W and Hebert, PD (2006) DNA Barcodes distinguish species of tropical Lepidoptera. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103, 968971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halbert, SE and Manjunath, KL (2004) Asian citrus psyllids (Sternorrhyncha: Psyllidae) and greening disease of citrus: a literature review and assessment of risk in Florida. Florida Entomologist 87(3), 330353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbert, SE and Núñez, CA (2004) Distribution of the Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri Kuwayama (Rhynchota: Psyllidae) in the Caribbean Basin. Florida Entomologist 87, 401402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, DG, Richardson, ML, Ammar, ED and Halbert, SE (2013) Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri, vector of citrus Huanglongbing disease. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 146(2), 207223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebert, PDN, Cywinska, A, Ball, SL and deWaard, JR (2003a) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 270(1512), 313321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebert, PD, Ratnasingham, S and deWaard, JR (2003b) Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 270(suppl. 1), 9699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebert, PD, Penton, EH, Burns, JM, Janzen, DH and Hallwachs, W (2004a) Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgerator. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101, 1481214817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebert, PD, Stoeckle, MY, Zemlak, TS and Francis, CM (2004b) Identification of birds through DNA barcodes. Plos Biology 2, e312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollis, D (1987) A new citrus-feeding psyllid from the Comoro Islands, with a review of the Diaphorina amoena species group (Homoptera). Systematic Entomology 12, 4761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalafi, EY, Tan, WB, Town, C and Dhillon, SK (2016) Automated identification of Monogeneans using digital image processing and K-nearest neighbor approaches. BMC Bioinformatics 17(19), 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashef, S, Nezamabadi-Pour, H and Rashedi, E (2018) Adaptive enhancement and binarization techniques for degraded plate images. Multimedia Tools and Applications 77(13), 1657916595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, DG (1977) The diffusion of shape. Advances in Applied Probability 9, 428430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S, Stecher, G, Li, M, Knyaz, C and Tamura, K (2018) MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35, 15471549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lashkari, M, Manzari, S, Sahragard, A, Malagnini, V, Boykin, LM and Hosseini, R (2014) Global genetic variation in the Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Liviidae) and the endosymbiont Wolbachia: links between Iran and the USA detect. Pest Management Science 70, 10331040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lashkari, M, Shamsi Gushki, R and Mirzaei, S (2019) Molecular study of ash psyllids, Psyllopsis (Hemiptera: Liviidae), and their Wolbachia Endosymbiont. Journal of Entomological Society of Iran 38(4), 389399.Google Scholar
Lashkari, M, Burckhardt, D and Shamsi Gushki, R (2020) Molecular and morphometric identification of pistachio psyllids with niche modeling of Agonoscena pistaciae (Hemiptera: Aphalaridae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 110(2), 259269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, LK, Chew, LL, Chong, VC and Dhillon, SK (2015) Automated identification of copepods using digital image processing and artificial neural network. BMC Bioinformatics 16(18), S4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacLeod, N (2017) Morphometrics: history, development methods and prospects. Zoological Systematics 42(1), 433.Google Scholar
Martoni, F, Bulman, S, Pitman, A, Taylor, G and Armstrong, K (2018) DNA Barcoding highlights cryptic diversity in the New Zealand Psylloidea (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha). Diversity 10, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolas, V, Schaeffer, B, Missoup, AD, Kennis, J, Colyn, M, Denys, C, Tatard, C, Cruaud, C and Laredo, C (2012) Assessment of three mitochondrial genes (16S, Cytb, CO1) for identifying species in the Praomyini tribe (Rodentia: Muridae). PLoS ONE 7, e36586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouvrard, D (2019) Psyl'list the world Psylloidea database. Available at http://www.hemiptera-databases.org/psyllist.Google Scholar
Percy, DM (2017) Making the most of your host: the Metrosideros-feeding psyllids (Hemiptera, Psylloidea) of the Hawaiian Islands. ZooKeys 649, 1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percy, DM, Butterill, PT and Malenovský, I (2016) Three new species of gall-forming psyllids (Hemiptera: Psylloidea) from Papua New Guinea, with new records and notes on related species. Journal of Natural History 50, 10731101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raid, A, Khedr, WM, El-dosuky, MA and Aoud, M (2014) Image restoration based on morphological operations. International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology (IJCSEIT) 4(3), 921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlf, FJ (2000) NTSYSpc, version 2.10e, Exter Software, Applied Biosystematics Inc.Google Scholar
Rohlf, FJ (2017) tpsDig2, version 2.31. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Rohlf, FJ (2019a) TpsUtil, version 1.78, Software. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Rohlf, FJ (2019b) tpsRelw, version 1.7, Software, Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Serbina, L and Mennecart, B (2018) Evolutionary pattern of the forewing shape in the Neotropical genus of jumping plant-lice (Hemiptera: Psylloidea: Russelliana). Organisms Diversity & Evolution 18(1), 313325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serbina, L, Burckhardt, D, Birkhofer, K, Syfert, MM and Halbert, SE (2015) The potato pest Russelliana solanicola Tuthill (Hemiptera: Psylloidea): taxonomy and host-plant patterns. Zootaxa 4021(1), 3362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shamsi Gushki, R, Lashkari, MR and Mirzaei, S (2018) Identification, sexual dimorphism, and allometric effects of three psyllid species of the genus Psyllopsis by geometric morphometric analysis (Hemiptera, Liviidae). ZooKeys 737, 5773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, C, Frati, F, Beckenbach, A, Crespi, B, Liu, H and Floors, P (1994) Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 87, 651701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swofford, DL (2002) PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Taylor, G, Fagan-Jeffries, EP and Austin, AD (2016) A new genus and twenty new species of Australian jumping plant-lice (Psylloidea: Triozidae) from Eremophila And Myoporum (Scrophulariaceae: Myoporeae). Zootaxa 4073(1), 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, JH and Liu, YH (2000) Biology of Diaphorina citri (Homoptera: Psyllidae) on four host plants. Journal of Economic Entomology 93, 17211725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Umar, HGA, Abbas, Q and Gulzar, F (2017) Insect classification using image processing and Bayesian network. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 5(6), 10791082.Google Scholar
Watson, AT, O'Neill, MA and Kitching, IJ (2004) Automated identification of live moths (Macrolepidoptera) using digital automated identification System (DAISY). Systematics and Biodiversity 1(3), 287300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, PJD, Gauld, ID, Gaston, KJ and O'Neill, MA (1997) Automating the identification of insects: a new solution to an old problem. Bulletin of Entomological Research 87, 203211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelditch, ML, Swiderski, DL and Sheets, HD (2012) Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer, 2nd Edn., San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Details of the specimens used for molecular, morphometric and automated identification of the three Diaphorina species

Figure 1

Figure 1. (a) Position of landmarks (circles) and semi landmarks (triangle) on the left forewing of Diaphorina citri. (b, c and d) forewings of D. citri, D. chobauti and D. zygophylli, respectively.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Preprocessing steps: (a) original image; (b) grayscale image; (c) edge detected images using Sobel operator; (d) image dilation; (e) removal of small connected components; (f) convex hull of image in stage e; (g) skew correction (mask); (h) extract wing using the mask; (i) binarization.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Scatter plot for the RW1 and RW2 on the forewing of the three Diaphorina species. Circle: D. citri; square: D. chobauti; pentagon: D. zygophylli.

Figure 4

Figure 4. (a) Superimposed landmark configurations and (b) superimposed forewing shapes of the three Diaphorina species: D. citri ………, D. chobauti ––––– and D. zygophylli - - - -.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Phenogram plotted by UPGMA method based on the generalized distance matrix in three psyllid species of the genus Diaphorina.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Forewing size (centroid size) comparison in the three Diaphorina species.

Figure 7

Figure 7. COI gene tree of the three Diaphorina species. The scale bar shows 10 changes. Bootstrap support values are indicated above the nodes.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Diaphorina spp. (a, b) D. chobauti; (c, d) D. citri; (e, f) D. communis; (g, h) D. lycii, (i, j) D. zygophylli. (a, c, e, g, i): habitus; (b, d, f, h, j): head, dorsal view.

Figure 9

Table 2. Pairwise distance between Diaphorina chobauti, D. citri and D. zygophylli. Upper matrix, Molecular; Lower matrix, Morphometric

Figure 10

Table 3. Ratio of white to black pixels in the forewing of Diaphorina chobauti, D. citri and D. zygophylli.