Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-vgfm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T23:53:41.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new needle nematode, Longidorus maginicus n. sp. (Nematoda: Longidoridae) from southern Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2022

G. Liébanas ,
I. Clavero-Camacho ,
C. Cantalapiedra-Navarrete ,
P. Guerrero ,
J.E. Palomares-Rius ,
P. Castillo  and
A. Archidona-Yuste Open the ORCID record for A. Archidona-Yuste [Opens in a new window]
G. Liébanas
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biología Animal, Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Universidad de Jaén, Campus ‘Las Lagunillas’ s/n, Edificio B3, 23071 - Jaén, Spain
I. Clavero-Camacho
Affiliation:
Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, Department of Crop Protection, Campus de Excelencia Internacional Agroalimentario, ceiA3, Avenida Menéndez Pidal s/n, 14004 Córdoba, Spain
C. Cantalapiedra-Navarrete
Affiliation:
Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, Department of Crop Protection, Campus de Excelencia Internacional Agroalimentario, ceiA3, Avenida Menéndez Pidal s/n, 14004 Córdoba, Spain
P. Guerrero
Affiliation:
IES El Valle, Carretera Madrid, 2, 23009 Jaén, Spain
J.E. Palomares-Rius
Affiliation:
Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, Department of Crop Protection, Campus de Excelencia Internacional Agroalimentario, ceiA3, Avenida Menéndez Pidal s/n, 14004 Córdoba, Spain
P. Castillo*
Affiliation:
Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, Department of Crop Protection, Campus de Excelencia Internacional Agroalimentario, ceiA3, Avenida Menéndez Pidal s/n, 14004 Córdoba, Spain
A. Archidona-Yuste
Affiliation:
Andalusian Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Research and Training (IFAPA), Centro Alameda del Obispo, 14004 Córdoba, Spain
*
Author for correspondence: P. Castillo, E-mail: p.castillo@csic.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During nematode surveys in natural vegetation in Sierra Mágina, Jaén province, southern Spain, a Longidorus species closely resembling Longidorus carpetanensis was found, but application of integrative taxonomic approaches clearly demonstrated that it is a new species described herein as Longidorus maginicus n. sp. The new species is amphimictic, characterized by a moderately long body (4.2–5.2 mm); lip region anteriorly flattened, slightly separated from the rest of body by a depression, 9.0–11.0 μm wide and 3.5–6.0 μm high; amphidial fovea not lobed; relatively short odontostyle (61.0–70.5 μm); guiding ring located 23.5–27.0 μm from anterior end; vulva located at 42.0%–51.3% of body length; female tail 39.0–61.0 μm long, conoid, dorsally convex with rounded terminus (c′ = 1.3–2.1), with two or three pairs of caudal pores; and males common (1:2 ratio males:females), with moderately long spicules (39.0–48.5 μm) and 1 + 6–9 ventromedian supplements and three juvenile developmental stages. According to the polytomous key, codes for the new species are (codes in parentheses are exceptions): A2-B1-C2-D2-E1-F2(3)-G2-H5(4)-I2-J1-K6. The results of molecular analysis of D2–D3 28S, internal transcribed spacer region, partial 18S rDNA, and cytochrome oxidase c subunit 1 (coxI) gene sequences further characterized the new species status, and separated it from L. carpetanensis and other related species.

Keywords

Cytochrome oxidase c subunit 1descriptionD2–D3 of 28s rRNAinternal transcribed spacer region rRNAmorphology

Information

Type
Research Paper
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 96 , 2022 , e40
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Longidorus Micoletzky, Reference Micoletzky1922 comprises a large and complex genus of the family Longidoridae Thorne, Reference Thorne1935 with approximately 180 species of plant-ectoparasitic nematodes that are polyphagous and distributed almost worldwide (Peneva et al., Reference Peneva, Lazarova, De Luca and Brown2013; Subbotin et al., Reference Subbotin, Rogozhin and Chizhov2014; Trisciuzzi et al., Reference Trisciuzzi, Archidona-Yuste, Troccoli, Fanelli, De Luca, Vovlas and Castillo2015; Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2019; Amrei et al., Reference Amrei, Peneva, Rakhshandehroo and Pedram2020; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a, Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillob; Clavero-Camacho et al., Reference Clavero-Camacho, Liebanas, Escuer, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Archidona-Yuste, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2021a, Reference Clavero-Camacho, Palomares-Rius, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, León-Ropero, Martín-Barbarroja, Archidona-Yuste and Castillob). In Spain, 41 species of Longidorus have been reported, from which 31 were molecularly characterized, and 19 of them were described as new species of this genus (Arias et al., Reference Arias, Andrés and Navas1986; Andrés & Arias, Reference Andrés and Arias1987; Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez et al., Reference Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Montes-Borrego, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2013; Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Navas-Cortés, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2016, Reference Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2019; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a, Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillob; Clavero-Camacho et al., Reference Clavero-Camacho, Liebanas, Escuer, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Archidona-Yuste, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2021a, Reference Clavero-Camacho, Palomares-Rius, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, León-Ropero, Martín-Barbarroja, Archidona-Yuste and Castillob). The importance of these nematodes is based not only in their polyphagy and cosmopolitan distribution but also some species are vectors of plant viruses that cause significant damage to a wide range of agricultural crops (Decraemer & Robbins, Reference Decraemer and Robbins2007; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a). Species discrimination in Longidorus is difficult because of the large number of species and because the conserved morphology and morphometric characters often overlap, leading to potential misidentification. Consequently, an accurate Longidorus species identification is essential and has significant implications in food security, quarantine measures and agronomic management in the field (Palomares-Rius et al., Reference Palomares-Rius, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete and Castillo2014; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a).

For these reasons, the development of molecular methods using different fragments of nuclear ribosomal and mitochondrial DNA gene sequences to be used in DNA barcoding during the last years led to an accurate species diagnosis, to clarify phylogenetic relationships and species delimitation under the genus Longidorus (Neilson et al., Reference Neilson, Ye, Oliveira, Hübschen, Robbins, Brown and Szalanski2004; Ye et al., Reference Ye, Szalanski and Robbins2004; Kumari & Subbotin, Reference Kumari and Subbotin2012; Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez et al., Reference Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Montes-Borrego, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2013; Subbotin et al., Reference Subbotin, Rogozhin and Chizhov2014; Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Navas-Cortés, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2016, Reference Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2019; Amrei et al., Reference Amrei, Peneva, Rakhshandehroo and Pedram2020; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a, Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillob; Clavero-Camacho et al., Reference Clavero-Camacho, Liebanas, Escuer, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Archidona-Yuste, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2021a, Reference Clavero-Camacho, Palomares-Rius, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, León-Ropero, Martín-Barbarroja, Archidona-Yuste and Castillob). In addition, the use of these molecular markers in species identification of Longidorus over the last decade has indicated that some species actually comprise multiple genetically divergent and morphologically similar cryptic species (Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Navas-Cortés, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2016, Reference Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2019; Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez et al., Reference Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Santos, Inácio, Eisenback and Mota2020; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a, Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillob).

A species of needle nematode of the genus Longidorus morphologically resembling Longidorus carpetanensis Arias et al., Reference Arias, Andrés and Navas1986, was detected during nematological surveys conducted in 2019 and 2020 in the natural vegetation of a mountain in southern Spain (Sierra Mágina, province of Jaén, Spain). Recently, however, topotypes of this species were recently morphologically and molecularly characterized (Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2019) which prompted us to study this population under an integrative taxonomic approach based on morphological and molecular, as well as a comprehensive, scanning electron microscope (SEM) analyses.

Therefore, the main objectives of this study were: (i) to characterize morphologically and morphometrically the new Spanish population of Longidorus and compare it with L. carpetanensis and related species; (ii) to characterize molecularly the new Longidorus population using the D2–D3 28S rRNA, internal transcribed spacer region (ITS) rRNA, partial 18S rRNA and cytochrome oxidase c subunit 1 (coxI) gene sequences; and (iii) to study the phylogenetic relationships of the identified Longidorus species with available sequenced species of the genus.

Material and methods

Nematode population and morphological characterization

In the spring of 2019 and 2020, seven soil samples were collected, with a shovel, from the upper 40-cm of soil in the rhizosphere of spiny madwort (Ptilotrichum spinosum (L.) Boiss.) in Albanchez de Mágina, Jaén province, Spain, and in three of them, low to moderate population densities of a new Longidorus population were detected. Subsequently, nematodes were extracted from a 500 cm3 subsample of soil by centrifugal flotation and a modification of Cobb's decanting and sieving methods (Flegg, Reference Flegg1967; Coolen, Reference Coolen, Lamberti and Taylor1979).

Specimens for study using light microscopy (LM) and morphometric studies were killed and fixed in a heat aqueous solution of 4% formaldehyde + 1% glycerine, dehydrated using an alcohol-saturated chamber and processed to pure glycerine using Seinhorst's method (Seinhorst, Reference Seinhorst1966) as modified by De Grisse (Reference De Grisse1969). Light micrographs and measurements of the nematode population, including important diagnostic characteristics (i.e. de Man indices, body length, odontostyle length, lip region, tail shape, amphid shape and oral aperture-guiding ring) (Jairajpuri & Ahmad, Reference Jairajpuri and Ahmad1992) were done using a Leica DM6 compound microscope with a Leica DFC7000T digital camera (Leica, Wetzlar, Germany). The raw photographs were edited using Adobe Photoshop v. 22.5.2 (San Francisco, CA, USA).

For SEM, fixed specimens were dehydrated in a gradient series of ethanol, critical-point dried, sputter-coated with gold according to the protocol by Abolafia et al. (Reference Abolafia, Liébanas and Peña-Santiago2002) and observed with a Zeiss Merlin Scanning Electron Microscope (5 kV; Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany).

Molecular characterization and phylogenetic analyses

For molecular analyses, and in order to avoid mistakes in case of mixed populations in the sample, single specimens were temporarily mounted in a drop of 1 M sodium chloride containing glass beads (to avoid nematode crushing/damaging specimens) to ensure specimens conformed with the target population. All necessary morphological and morphometric data were recorded. This was followed by DNA extraction from single individuals as described by Archidona-Yuste et al. (Reference Archidona-Yuste, Navas-Cortés, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2016). The D2–D3 segments were amplified using the D2A (5′-ACAAGTACCGTGAGGGAAAGTTG-3′) and D3B (5′-TCGGAAGGAACCAGCTACTA-3′) primers (De Ley et al., Reference De Ley, Félix, Frisse, Nadler, Sternberg and Thomas1999). The ITS was amplified using forward primer 18S (5′-TTGATTACGTCCCTGCCCTTT-3′) and reverse primer 26S (5′-TTTCACTCGCCGTTACTAAGG-3′) (Vrain et al., Reference Vrain, Wakarchuk, Levesque and Hamilton1992). The portion of 18S rRNA was amplified using primers 988F (5′-CTCAAAGATTAAGCCATGC-3′), 1912R (5′-TTTACGGTCAGAACTAGGG-3′), 1813F (5′-CTGCGTGAGAGGTGAAAT-3′) and 2646R (5′-GCTACCTTGTTACGACTTTT-3′) (Holterman et al., Reference Holterman, Van Der Wurff, van Den Elsen, van Megen, Bongers, Holovachov, Bakker and Helder2006). Finally, the portion of the coxI gene was amplified as described by Lazarova et al. (Reference Lazarova, Malloch, Oliveira, Hübschen and Neilson2006) using the primers COIF (5′-GATTTTTTGGKCATCCWGARG-3′) and COIR (5′- CWACATAATAAGTATCATG-3′).

All polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays were done according to the conditions described by Archidona-Yuste et al. (Reference Archidona-Yuste, Navas-Cortés, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2016). Then, the amplified PCR products were purified using ExoSAP-IT (Affimetrix, USB products) and used for direct sequencing on a DNA multicapillary sequencer (Model 3130XL genetic analyser; Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), using the BigDye Terminator Sequencing Kit V.3.1 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), at the StabVida sequencing facilities (Costa da Caparica, Portugal). The newly obtained sequences were submitted to the GenBank database under the accession numbers indicated on the phylogenetic trees.

Phylogenetic analyses

The D2–D3 expansion segments of 28S, ITS and 18S rDNA, and coxI mtDNA sequences, of the recently recovered unidentified Longidorus species were obtained in this study. These sequences, and other sequences from species of Longidorus from GenBank, were used for phylogenetic analyses. Outgroup taxa for each dataset were chosen following previously published studies (He et al., Reference He, Subbotin, Rubtsova, Lamberti, Brown and Moens2005; Holterman et al., Reference Holterman, Van Der Wurff, van Den Elsen, van Megen, Bongers, Holovachov, Bakker and Helder2006; Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez et al., Reference Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Montes-Borrego, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2013; Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2019; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a). Multiple sequence alignments of the different genes were made using the FFT-NS-2 algorithm of MAFFT V.7.450 (Katoh et al., Reference Katoh, Rozewicki and Yamada2019). Sequence alignments were manually visualized using BioEdit (Hall, Reference Hall1999) and edited by Gblocks ver. 0.91b (Castresana, Reference Castresana2000) in the Castresana Laboratory server (http://molevol.cmima.csic.es/castresana/Gblocks_server.html) using options for a less stringent selection (minimum number of sequences for a conserved or a flanking position: 50% of the number of sequences +1; maximum number of contiguous non-conserved positions: 8; minimum length of a block: 5; allowed gap positions: with half). Phylogenetic analyses of the sequence datasets were based on Bayesian inference (BI) using MrBayes 3.1.2 (Ronquist & Huelsenbeck, Reference Ronquist and Huelsenbeck2003). The best-fit model of DNA evolution was obtained using JModelTest V.2.1.7 (Darriba et al., Reference Darriba, Taboada, Doallo and Posada2012) with the Akaike information criterion (AIC). The best-fit model, the base frequency, the proportion of invariable sites, the gamma distribution shape parameters and substitution rates in the AIC were then used in MrBayes for the phylogenetic analyses. BI analyses were performed under a general time-reversible model with invariable sites and a gamma-shaped distribution (GTR + I + G) for the D2–D3 segments of 28S, ITS, and the partial 18S rDNA, and Tamura–Nei model with invariable sites and a gamma-shaped distribution (TRN + I + G) for the partial coxI gene. All Bayesian analyses were run separately per dataset with four chains for 4 × 106 generations. The Markov chains were sampled at intervals of 100 generations. Two runs were conducted for each analysis. After discarding burn-in samples of 30% and evaluating convergence, the remaining samples were retained for in-depth analyses. The topologies were used to generate a 50% majority-rule consensus tree. Posterior probabilities (PP) were given on appropriate clades. Trees from all analyses were visualized using FigTree software version v.1.42 (Rambaut, Reference Rambaut2014). A combined analysis of the three ribosomal genes was not undertaken due to some sequences not being available for all species.

Results

Low to moderate densities (5–10 nematodes/500 cm3 of soil) of the presently studied population of Longidorus were detected in three out of seven soil samples collected from the rhizosphere of spiny madwort (P. spinosum (L.) Boiss.) in Albanchez de Mágina, Jaén province, Spain. Detailed morphological, morphometrical and molecular information about this species is provided below, confirming its identity as a new species of the genus described herein.

Taxonomy

Phylum: Nematoda Rudolphi, 1808

Class: Enoplea Inglis, 1983

Order: Dorylaimida Pearse, 1942

Suborder: Dorylaimina Pearse, 1936

Superfamily: Longidoroidea Khan and Ahmad, 1975

Family: Longidoridae Thorne, Reference Thorne1935

Genus: Longidorus Micoletzky, Reference Micoletzky1922

Longidorus maginicus n. sp.

ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: CFEEC5B2-A34F-440E-B92C-029818AFC9E1

Description

(Figures 1–4, table 1)

Fig. 1.

Longidorus maginicus n. sp. (drawings). (a) female neck region; (b) female anterior region; (c) detail of posterior genital branch; (d) female tail; and (e, f) male tail.

Table 1.

Morphometrics of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. from of spiny madwort (Ptilotrichum spinosum (L.) Boiss.) in Albanchez de Mágina, Jaén province, Spain). All measurements are in μm and in the form: mean ± standard deviation (range).

a d = anterior to guiding ring/body diameter at lip region; d′ = body diameter at guiding ring/body diameter at lip region; and J = hyaline tail region length.

Females. Body G-shaped after being relaxed by gentle heat (fig. 2a), gradually tapering in both ends and with greater curvature in posterior end. Cuticle apparently composed of two layers (2.5–3.5 μm at mid-body), thickened in tail region. Lateral body pores observed in pharyngeal region (fig. 3). Lip region anteriorly flattened, slightly separated from the rest of body by a depression. Amphidial fovea pouchlike, not lobed. SEM observations showed a slit-like oral aperture surrounded by six labial papillae in en face view, and a pore-like aperture of amphidial fovea (fig. 4). Odontostyle thin and moderately long, narrow, 1.5 (1.3–1.8) times as long as odontophore, straight or flexible (figs 1 and 2), odontophore moderately developed surrounding muscles at base. Pharynx with three visible nuclei, the dorsal gland's nucleus at approximately 15.1–19.4%, and two smaller ventrosublateral nucei (S1N) at almost the same level, 48.6–55.3% of pharyngeal bulb length (according to Loof & Coomans, Reference Loof and Coomans1972). Nerve ring surrounding anterior part of isthmus. Glandularium 74.0 (64.0–82.0) μm long. Cardia small, conoid-rounded. Reproductive system didelphic amphidelphic with genital branches almost equally developed with reflexed ovaries, 448.5 (310.0–623.0) μm, 423.0 (308.0–505.0) μm long, respectively. Vulva a transverse slit in ventral view, situated about 50% of body length and vagina 10.1 (8.0–12.0) μm long, perpendicular to body axis at approximately 20% of corresponding body width long, surrounded by constrictor muscles. Sperm cells present in the genital branches of some specimens. Rectum 25.6 (22.0–28.0) μm long. Tail moderately long, conoid, dorsally convex with rounded terminus, with two or three pairs of caudal pores on each side.

Fig. 2.

Light micrographs of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. (a) entire female; (b–e) female anterior end showing guiding ring (arrowed); (f) vulval region; (g–k) female tail; (l) entire male; (m–q) male tail with details of spicules, lateral guiding piece and ventromedian supplements (arrowed); and (r–u) tail region of 1st, 2nd and 4th stage juveniles (J1, J2 and J4). Abbreviations: a = anus; gr = guiding ring; lp = lateral guiding piece; sp = spicule; V = vulva; vspl = ventromedian supplement. (Scale bars: a, l = 100 μm; b–k, m–u = 20 μm).

Fig. 3.

Scanning electron microscope micrographs of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. (a, b) female anterior end in lateral view showing outer labial papillae (lp) and lateral body pore (lbp); (c, d) female lip region showing labial papillae (lp) and amphidial aperture (aa) arrowed; (e) en face view showing oral aperture (oa) arrowed; (f) vulval region showing vulva (V) and lateral body pore (lbp); (g) female tail showing anus (a); and (h): male posterior body region showing anus and ventromedian supplements. Abbreviations: a = anus; aa = amphidial aperture; lbp = lateral body pore; lp = labial papilla; oa = oral aperture; V = vulva; vspl = ventromedian supplement. (Scale bars: a, f, g = 10 μm; b = 2 μm; c–e = 1 μm; h = 50 μm).

Fig. 4.

Relationship of body length to length of functional and replacement odontostyle (Odt and rOdt, respectively) length in all developmental stages from first-, second and fourth-stage juveniles (J1, J2 and J4) and mature females of Longidorus maginicus n. sp.

Males. Common, but less frequent than female (1:2 ratio males:females). Morphologically similar to female except for genital system and secondary sexual features, and posterior region more strongly curved ventrally. Genital tract diorchic with testes opposed, containing multiple rows of spermatogonia. Tail conoid, dorsally convex with rounded terminus and thickened outer cuticular layer. Spicules dorylaimoid, moderately developed and curved ventrally, lateral guiding piece more or less straight or with curved proximal end. Supplements comprising one cloacal pair 12–17 μm from cloacal aperture and a midventral row of 6–9.

Juveniles. Three developmental juvenile stages were detected and distinguished by body length, odontostyle length and replacement odontostyle length (Robbins et al., Reference Robbins, Brown, Halbrendt and Vrain1995, Reference Robbins, Brown, Halbrendt and Vrain1996). Morphology resembling female except in slight variations in c′ ratio, body size and sexual characteristics (table 1, fig. 2). The first-stage juvenile was characterized by a bluntly conoid tail (c′ = 2.6; fig. 2).

Diagnosis and relationships

Longidorus maginicus n. sp. is an amphimictic species characterized by a moderately long body (4.2–5.2 mm); lip region anteriorly flattened, slightly separated from the rest of body by depression, 9–11 μm wide and 3.5–6.0 μm high; amphidial fovea not lobed; relatively short odontostyle (61.0–70.5 μm); guiding ring located 23.5–27.0 μm from anterior end; vulva located at 46.4%–51.3% of body length; female tail 39–61 μm long, conoid, dorsally convex with rounded terminus (c′ = 1.3–2.1), with two or three pairs of caudal pores; and males common (1:2 ratio males:females), with medium size spicules (39.0–48.5 μm) and 1 pair + 6–9 ventromedian supplements. According to the polytomous key by Chen et al. (Reference Chen, Hooper, Loof and Xu1997) and the new code by Peneva et al. (Reference Peneva, Lazarova, De Luca and Brown2013), codes for the new species are (codes in parentheses are exceptions): A2-B1-C2-D2-E1-F2(3)-G2-H5(4)-I2-J1-K6.

Conforming to the polytomous key by Chen et al. (Reference Chen, Hooper, Loof and Xu1997), and on the basis of sorting on matrix codes A (odontostyle length), B (lip region width), C (distance of guiding-ring from anterior body end), D (lip region shape) and F (body length), L. maginicus n. sp. is closely related to Longidorus pini Andrés & Arias, Reference Andrés and Arias1987, L. carpetanensis Arias et al., Reference Arias, Andrés and Navas1986, Longidorus unedoi Arias et al., Reference Arias, Andrés and Navas1986, Longidorus indalus Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Navas-Cortés, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2016, and Longidorus bordonensis Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez et al., Reference Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Santos, Inácio, Eisenback and Mota2020, from which it can be differentiated by a combination of characters discussed below. Longidorus maginicus. n. sp. differs from L. carpetanensis by a slightly longer odontostyle (61.0–70.5 vs. 54.0–65.0 μm), longer body (4.2–5.2 vs. 3.5–4.4 mm), longer spicules (39.0–48.5 vs. 34.0–38.5 μm), and amphidial fovea (not lobed vs. bilobed symmetrically) (Arias et al., Reference Arias, Andrés and Navas1986). From L. pini by lip region shape (anteriorly flattened, slightly separated from the rest of body by a depression vs. offset and slightly expanded lip region), and amphidial fovea (not lobed vs. bilobed symmetrically) (Andrés & Arias, Reference Andrés and Arias1987). From L. unedoi by a slightly longer odontostyle (61.0–70.5 vs. 52.0–64.0 μm), a shorter body length (4.2–5.2 vs. 5.0–6.0 mm), larger spicules (39.0–48.5 vs. 35.0 μm) and amphidial fovea (not lobed vs. bilobed asymmetrically) (Arias et al., Reference Arias, Andrés and Navas1986). From L. indalus by a longer odontostyle (61.0–70.5 vs. 54.0–59.5 μm) and lip region shape (anteriorly flattened, slightly separated from the rest of body by a depression vs. expanded distinctly set off from body contour) (Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Navas-Cortés, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2016). From L. bordonensis by lip region shape (anteriorly flattened, slightly separated from the rest of body by a depression vs. offset and slightly expanded lip region), amphidial fovea (not lobed vs. bilobed asymmetrically) and c′ ratio (1.3–2.1 vs. 1.9–3.1) (Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez et al., Reference Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Santos, Inácio, Eisenback and Mota2020). In addition, L. maginicus n. sp. can be separated from these species by ribosomal and mitochondrial molecular markers (see below).

Etymology

The species epithet refers to the mountain where the species was detected (Sierra Mágina, Jaén province, Spain).

Type host and locality

The new species was recovered from the rhizosphere of spiny madwort (P. spinosum (L.) Boiss.) in Albanchez de Mágina, Jaén province, Spain (coordinates 37°43′58.7″N 3°28′11.4″W).

Type material

Holotype female and 17 female and seven male paratypes deposited at the Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (IAS) of Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Córdoba, Spain (slide numbers SM7-02-SM7-11); one female and one male at the Istituto per la Protezione delle Piante (IPP) of Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (C.N.R.), Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy (SM7-012); and one female and one male at the United States Department of Agriculture Nematode Collection (T-7607p).

Molecular characterization

Longidorus maginicus n. sp. was molecularly characterized by the sequences of three ribosomal genes, D2–D3 segment of 28S, ITS and partial 18S rDNA, and the mitochondrial gene coxI. The amplification of these regions yielded single fragments of approximately 900, 1600, 1600 and 400 base pairs (bp), respectively, based on gel electrophoresis. Six D2–D3 of 28S rDNA sequences from 716 to 749 bp (OL471525–OL471530), four ITS rDNA sequences from 1504 to 1522 bp (OL471535–OL471538), four 18S rDNA sequences from 1719 to 1733bp (OL471531–OL471534) and three coxI sequences of 365 bp (OL471046–OL471048) were generated for this new species without intraspecific sequence variations. D2–D3 segment of 28S rDNA of L. maginicus n. sp. (OL471525–OL471530) was 97% identical to L. carpetanensis (MH430019) and L. pini (MH430028) and 96% identical to L. bordonensis (MN082422). ITS of L. maginicus n. sp. (OL471535–OL471538) was 86% identical to L. pini (MH430001), 84% identical to L. carpetanensis (MH429991), L. pacensis Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2019 (MH429992) and 83% similar to L. bordonensis (MN150062). Partial 18S of L. maginicus n. sp. (OL471531–OL471534) was 99% identical to several Longidorus species such as Longidorus vineacola (AY283169), Longidorus elongatus de Man 1876 (EU503141), L. pini (MH430011) and Longidorus tabernensis Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a, Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillob (MK941261). Finally, coxI of L. maginicus n. sp. (OL471046–OL471048) was 80% identical to L. carpetanensis (MH454068), and 79% to L. pini (MH454070) and Longidorus iliturgiensis Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2019 (MH454065).

Phylogenetic relationships of L. maginicus n. sp. with other Longidorus spp.

Phylogenetic relationships among Longidorus species, as inferred from analyses of D2–D3 expansion domains of 28S, ITS, the partial 18S rDNA and the partial coxI mtDNA gene sequences using BI, are shown in figs 5–8, respectively. The phylogenetic trees generated with the ribosomal and mitochondrial DNA markers included 113, 18, 89 and 60 sequences, and their alignment had 741, 1709, 1675 and 383 characters, respectively. The presently resolved D2–D3 tree of Longidorus spp., L. maginus n. sp. (OL471525–OL471530), L. pini (MH430028), L. bordonensis (MN082421) and L. carpetanensis (MH430019) formed a well-supported subclade (PP = 1.00), including while other morphologically related species (viz. L. indalus and L. iliturgiensis) occupied a separate clade (PP = 0.97) (fig. 5).

Fig. 5.

Phylogenetic relationships of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. with species of Longidorus. Bayesian 50% majority rule consensus tree as inferred from D2 and D3 expansion domains of 28S rDNA sequence alignment under the GTR + I+ G model (−lnL = 16,234.1335; Akaike information criterion  = 32,936.2669; freqA = 0.2265; freqC = 0.2250; freqG = 0.2913; freqT = 0.2571; R(a) = 0.9207; R(b) = 2.7156; R(c) = 1.6004; R(d) = 0.4273; R(e) = 5.2793; R(f) = 1.0000; Pinva = 0.3230; and shape = 0.8070). Posterior probabilities more than 0.70 are given for appropriate clades. Newly obtained sequences in this study are shown in boldface type, and coloured box indicates clade association of the new species. Scale bar = expected changes per site.

Difficulties were detected in finding suitable sequences for the phylogenetic reconstruction of ITS sequences due to the low coverage and identity with other sequences of Longidorus. Consequently, only related sequences were chosen for ITS phylogeny and ambiguously aligned regions were discarded from the alignment (fig. 6). In ITS phylogeny, the new species occupied a placement inside a well-supported clade (PP = 1.00). However, the clade of the new species (OL471535–OL471538) with L. carpetanensis (MH429991 and MH429993), L. pacensis (MH429992) and L. pini (MH430001) received a 0.88 PP. Other morphologically related species (viz. L. indalus and L. iliturgiensis) showed very low sequence identity and were excluded from the analysis.

Fig. 6.

Phylogenetic relationships of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. with species of Longidorus. Bayesian 50% majority rule consensus tree as inferred from ITS rDNA sequence alignment under the GTR + I+ G model (−lnL = 9666.2264; Akaike information criterion = 19,420.4529; freqA = 0.2695; freqC = 0.1995; freqG = 0.2704; freqT = 0.2606; R(a) = 0.9112; R(b) = 2.6397; R(c) = 1.4133; R(d) = 0.7800; R(e) = 4.0411; R(f) = 1.0000; Pinva = 0.2010; and shape = 1.2680). Posterior probabilities more than 0.70 are given for appropriate clades. Newly obtained sequences in this study are shown in boldface type, and coloured box indicates clade association of the new species. Scale bar = expected changes per site.

In a 50% majority rule consensus 18S rDNA BI tree, L. maginicus n. sp. (OL471531–OL471534), L. carpetanensis (MH430006) and L. pini (MH430011) formed a well-supported clade (PP = 1.00), while L. indalus (KT308894) and L. iliturgiensis (MH430002) clustered separately (fig. 7).

Fig. 7.

Phylogenetic relationships of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. with species of Longidorus. Bayesian 50% majority rule consensus tree as inferred from 18S rDNA sequence alignment under the GTR + I+ G model (−lnL = 6419.3228; Akaike information criterion = 13,210.6455; freqA = 0.2726; freqC = 0.2111; freqG = 0.2616; freqT = 0.2547; R(a) = 1.2039; R(b) = 3.4138; R(c) = 1.7952; R(d) = 0.4804; R(e) = 7.2334; R(f) = 1.0000; Pinva  = 0.7480; and shape = 0.5440). Posterior probabilities more than 0.70 are given for appropriate clades. Newly obtained sequences in this study are shown in boldface type, and coloured box indicates clade association of the new species. Scale bar = expected changes per site.

Finally, the phylogenetic relationships of L. maginicus n. sp. (OL471046–OL471048) with other species, using coxI gene sequences, were not resolved due to polytomy (fig. 8).

Fig. 8.

Phylogenetic relationships of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. with species of Longidorus. Bayesian 50% majority-rule consensus trees as inferred from cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (coxI) mtDNA gene sequence alignments under the TRN + I + G model (−lnL = 9999.6926; Akaike information criterion = 20,249.3853; freqA = 0.3063; freqC = 0.1721; freqG = 0.1875; freqT = 0.3341; R(a) = 1.0000; R(b) = 7.1246; R(c) = 1.0000; R(d) = 1.0000; R(e) = 47.8802; R(f) = 1.0000; Pinva = 0.3720; and shape = 0.327). Posterior probabilities more than 0.70 are given for appropriate clades. Newly obtained sequences in this study are shown in boldface type, and coloured box indicates clade association of the new species. Scale bar = expected changes per site.

Discussion

Accurate species identification in the genus Longidorus is often problematic due to a huge number of valid species, presence of cryptic species and many potential diagnostic features that must be considered. The main objective of this study was to identify and describe, morphologically (including LM and SEM analyses) and molecularly, a new population of Longidorus detected in a natural environment in Albanchez de Mágina, Jaén province, southern Spain, as well as clarify the phylogenetic relationships within the genus Longidorus. All the provided results confirmed that the unknown Longidorus population is morphologically and morphometrically very close to L. carpetanensis described from central Spain, except for slight differences in odontostyle length and shape of the amphidial fovea. Nevertheless, all the molecular markers clearly separated both taxa confirming that the new population is a new valid species of the genus. Only a few species of Longidorus and Paralongidorus have been described with complete SEM observations (Roca, Reference Roca2006; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Maria, Qu, Castillo and Zheng2018; Clavero-Camacho et al., Reference Clavero-Camacho, Liebanas, Escuer, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Archidona-Yuste, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2021a, Reference Clavero-Camacho, Palomares-Rius, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, León-Ropero, Martín-Barbarroja, Archidona-Yuste and Castillob). Our SEM results provide clear evidence of pore-like amphidial apertures dissipating doubts about the generic placement as recently established for Longidorus iberis (Clavero-Camacho et al., Reference Clavero-Camacho, Liebanas, Escuer, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Archidona-Yuste, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2021a, Reference Clavero-Camacho, Palomares-Rius, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, León-Ropero, Martín-Barbarroja, Archidona-Yuste and Castillob). Interestingly, although more studies are needed for confirming this hypothesis, these results suggest that native deciduous leguminous shrubs (brooms) of the family Fabaceae may be a common host-plant of these nematodes, since the latter species was also described from common broom (Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link). Likewise, these results increase the already high biodiversity of this genus in the Iberian Peninsula (45 species reported so far) and support that species richness in natural environments is higher than in cultivated areas (Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Navas-Cortés, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2016, Reference Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2019; Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez et al., Reference Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Bravo, Santos, Vieira and Mota2016, Reference Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Santos, Inácio, Eisenback and Mota2020; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a, Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillob; Clavero-Camacho et al., Reference Clavero-Camacho, Liebanas, Escuer, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Archidona-Yuste, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2021a, Reference Clavero-Camacho, Palomares-Rius, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, León-Ropero, Martín-Barbarroja, Archidona-Yuste and Castillob). This fact can be easily understood from the consideration that the larger nematodes (i.e. Longidorus spp.) seem to be mainly affected by the short-term consequences of the establishment of agricultural systems (Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Wiegand, Eisenhauer, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2021). Notably, the description of this new species increases the data on the biodiversity of the genus Longidorus in the Euro-Mediterranean region (Navas et al., Reference Navas, Baldwin, Barrios and Nombela1993).

Again, ribosomal and mitochondrial markers (D2–D3 expansion domains of the 28S, ITS rDNA, and the mtDNA gene coxI) are important tools for accurate identification of Longidorus and remain essential for accurate diagnosis of needle nematodes (Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2019; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a, Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillob; Clavero-Camacho et al., Reference Clavero-Camacho, Liebanas, Escuer, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Archidona-Yuste, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2021a, Reference Clavero-Camacho, Palomares-Rius, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, León-Ropero, Martín-Barbarroja, Archidona-Yuste and Castillob). However, the low nucleotide variability found in partial 18S rRNA makes it difficult to identify individuals to the species level. Phylogenetic analyses based on ribosomal genes resulted in a consensus of species’ phylogenetic positions for the majority of species and this was congruent with those given by previous phylogenetic analyses (Peneva et al., Reference Peneva, Lazarova, De Luca and Brown2013; Subbotin et al., Reference Subbotin, Rogozhin and Chizhov2014; Trisciuzzi et al., Reference Trisciuzzi, Archidona-Yuste, Troccoli, Fanelli, De Luca, Vovlas and Castillo2015; Archidona-Yuste et al., Reference Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2019; Amrei et al., Reference Amrei, Peneva, Rakhshandehroo and Pedram2020; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a, Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillob; Clavero-Camacho et al., Reference Clavero-Camacho, Liebanas, Escuer, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Archidona-Yuste, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2021a, Reference Clavero-Camacho, Palomares-Rius, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, León-Ropero, Martín-Barbarroja, Archidona-Yuste and Castillob). In particular, in all three ribosomal genes trees, L. maginicus n. sp. clustered with all the morphologically related species, including L. carpetanensis, L. pini and L. bordonensis (figs 5–7). The close phylogenetic relationships of species of Longidorus have been already documented (Gharibzadeh et al., Reference Gharibzadeh, Pourjam and Pedram2018). However, the resolution of the phylogenetic relationship for this genus with coxI was very low due to polytomy (fig. 8), probably because mtDNA evolves faster than ribosomal DNA and also by the relatively shorter size of the region sequenced (Lazarova et al., Reference Lazarova, Malloch, Oliveira, Hübschen and Neilson2006; Kumari et al., Reference Kumari, Decraemer, De Luca and Tiefenbrunner2010; Palomares-Rius et al., Reference Palomares-Rius, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Archidona-Yuste, Subbotin and Castillo2017). However, coxI is an excellent molecular marker for species separation and identification (Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez et al., Reference Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Decraemer, Vovlas, Prior, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2012; Cai et al., Reference Cai, Archidona-Yuste, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Palomares-Rius and Castillo2020a; Clavero-Camacho et al., Reference Clavero-Camacho, Liebanas, Escuer, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, Archidona-Yuste, Castillo and Palomares-Rius2021a, Reference Clavero-Camacho, Palomares-Rius, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, León-Ropero, Martín-Barbarroja, Archidona-Yuste and Castillob).

A brief review of the available literature shows that nematological efforts during the last decades on longidorid species in southern Spain have been higher than those in other parts of our country; however, the current distribution of the genus Longidorus in Spain suggests that this part of the country can be considered as a potential hotspot of biodiversity. Nevertheless, further research is needed to definitely confirm this hypothesis.

In summary, the present study confirms the usefulness of application of an integrative approach based on the combination of morphometric and morphological traits and genotyping rRNA and mtDNA markers for correct species discriminating among Longidorus species, and suggesting the need for continuing nematode surveys in natural environments in order to complete the unexplored biodiversity of this genus in this region and all over the world.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank J. Martín Barbarroja and G. León Ropero for their excellent technical contributions. Scanning electron microscope pictures were obtained with the assistance of technical staff and the equipment of ‘Centro de Instrumentación Científico-Técnica (CICT)’, University of Jaén.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Financial support

Analysis of molecular diversity, barcoding, and phylogenetic relationships of plant-parasitic nematodes in the Mediterranean Basin. Grant 201740E042.

Ethical standards

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional guides on the care and use of laboratory animals.

References

Abolafia, J, Liébanas, G and Peña-Santiago, R (2002) Nematodes of the order Rhabditida from Andalucia Oriental, Spain. The subgenus Pseudacrobeles Steiner, 1938, with description of a new species. Journal of Nematode Morphology and Systematics 4(2), 137–154.Google Scholar
Amrei, SB, Peneva, V, Rakhshandehroo, F and Pedram, M (2020) Morphological and molecular description of Longidorus behshahrensis n. sp. (Nematoda: Longidoridae) from natural forests of Abbas Abad, north of Iran. European Journal of Plant Pathology 156(1), 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrés, MF and Arias, M (1987) A new species of Longidorus (Nematoda: Longidoridae) associated with forest soils and notes on L. congoensis Aboul-Eid, 1970 and L. intermedius Kozlowska & Seinhorst, 1979, new records for Spain. Nematologica 33(4), 386–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archidona-Yuste, A, Navas-Cortés, JA, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C, Palomares-Rius, JE and Castillo, P (2016) Unravelling the biodiversity and molecular phylogeny of needle nematodes of the genus Longidorus (Nematoda: Longidoridae) in olive and a description of six new species. PLoS One 11(1), e0147689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archidona-Yuste, A, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C, Castillo, P and Palomares-Rius, JE (2019) Molecular phylogenetic analysis and comparative morphology reveals the diversity and distribution of needle nematodes of the genus Longidorus (Dorylaimida: Longidoridae) from Spain. Contributions to Zoology 88(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archidona-Yuste, A, Wiegand, T, Eisenhauer, N, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C, Palomares-Rius, JE and Castillo, P (2021) Agriculture causes homogenization of plant-feeding nematode communities at the regional scale. Journal of Applied Ecology 58(12), 2881–2891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arias, M, Andrés, MF and Navas, A (1986) Longidorus carpetanensis sp. n. and L. unedoi sp. n. (Nematoda: Longidoridae) from Spain. Revue de Nématologie 9(2), 101–106.Google Scholar
Cai, R, Maria, M, Qu, N, Castillo, P and Zheng, J (2018) Morphological and molecular characterization of Paralongidorus sali Siddiqi, Hooper, and Khan, 1963 with a description of the first-stage juvenile and male of Longidorus jonesi Siddiqi, 1962 from China. Journal of Nematology 50(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cai, R, Archidona-Yuste, A, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C, Palomares-Rius, JE and Castillo, P (2020a) New evidence of cryptic speciation in needle and dagger nematodes of the genera Longidorus and Xiphinema (Nematoda: Longidoridae). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 58(4), 869–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, R, Archidona-Yuste, A, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C, Palomares-Rius, JE and Castillo, P (2020b) Integrative descriptions and molecular phylogeny of two new needle nematodes of the genus Longidorus (Nematoda: Longidoridae) from Spain. European Journal of Plant Pathology 156(1), 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castresana, J (2000) Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Molecular Biology and Evolution 17(4), 540–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, QW, Hooper, DJ, Loof, PAA and Xu, J (1997) A revised polytomous key for the identification of species of the genus Longidorus Micoletzky, 1922 (Nematoda: Dorylaimoidea). Fundamental and Applied Nematology 20(1), 15–28.Google Scholar
Clavero-Camacho, I, Liebanas, G, Escuer, M, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C, Archidona-Yuste, A, Castillo, P and Palomares-Rius, JE (2021a) Studies on Longidorus iberis (Escuer & Arias, 1997) n. comb. (Nematoda: Longidoridae) from Spain. Nematology 23(8), 871–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clavero-Camacho, I, Palomares-Rius, JE, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C, León-Ropero, G, Martín-Barbarroja, J, Archidona-Yuste, A and Castillo, P (2021b) Integrative taxonomy reveals hidden cryptic diversity within the pin nematodes of the genus Paratylenchus (Nematoda: Tylenchulidae). Plants 10(7), 1454871–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coolen, WA (1979) Methods for extraction of Meloidogyne spp. and other nematodes from roots and soil. pp. 317–329. In Lamberti, F and Taylor, CE (Eds) Root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne species): systematics, biology and control. New York, USA, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Darriba, D, Taboada, GL, Doallo, R and Posada, D (2012) jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nature Methods 9(8), 772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Decraemer, W and Robbins, RT (2007) The who, what and where of Longidoridae and Trichodoridae. Journal of Nematology 39(4), 295–297.Google ScholarPubMed
De Grisse, AT (1969) Redescription ou modifications de quelques techniques utilisées dans l’étude de nématodes phytoparasitaires [Redescription or modification of some techniques used in the study of phytoparasitic nematodes]. Mededelingen Rijksfaculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Gent 34(1), 315–359. [In French.]Google Scholar
De Ley, P, Félix, MA, Frisse, LM, Nadler, SA, Sternberg, PW and Thomas, WK (1999) Molecular and morphological characterisation of two reproductively isolated species with mirror-image anatomy (Nematoda: Cephalobidae). Nematology 1(6), 591–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flegg, JJM (1967) Extraction of Xiphinema and Longidorus species from soil by a modification of Cobb's decanting and sieving technique. Annals of Applied Biology 60(3), 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gharibzadeh, F, Pourjam, E and Pedram, M (2018) Description of Longidorus azarbaijanensis n. sp. (Dorylaimida: Longidoridae) from Iran. Journal of Nematology 50(2), 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, C, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C, Decraemer, W, Vovlas, N, Prior, T, Palomares-Rius, JE and Castillo, P (2012) Phylogeny, diversity, and species delimitation in some species of the Xiphinema americanum-group complex (Nematoda: Longidoridae), as inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences and morphology. European Journal of Plant Pathology 134(3), 561–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, C, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C, Montes-Borrego, M, Palomares-Rius, JE and Castillo, P (2013) Molecular phylogeny of the nematode genus Longidorus (Nematoda: Longidoridae) with description of three new species. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 167(4), 473–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, C, Bravo, MA, Santos, MT, Vieira, P and Mota, M (2016) An update on the genus Longidorus, Paralongidorus and Xiphinema (Family Longidoridae) in Portugal. Zootaxa 4189(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, C, Santos, MT, Inácio, ML, Eisenback, JD and Mota, M (2020) Description of Longidorus bordonensis sp. nov. from Portugal, with systematics and molecular phylogeny of the genus (Nematoda, Longidoridae). Zoosystematics and Evolution 96(1), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41(1), 95–98.Google Scholar
He, Y, Subbotin, S, Rubtsova, TV, Lamberti, F, Brown, DJF and Moens, M (2005) A molecular phylogenetic approach to Longidoridae (Nematoda: Dorylaimida). Nematology 7(1), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holterman, M, Van Der Wurff, A, van Den Elsen, S, van Megen, H, Bongers, T, Holovachov, O, Bakker, J and Helder, J (2006) Phylum-wide analysis of SSU rDNA reveals deep phylogenetic relationships among nematodes and accelerated evolution toward crown clades. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 23(9), 1792–1800.Google ScholarPubMed
Jairajpuri, MS and Ahmad, W (1992) Dorylaimida: free-living, predaceous and plant-parasitic nematodes. New Delhi, India, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Katoh, K, Rozewicki, J and Yamada, KD (2019) MAFFT online service: multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Brief Bioinformatics 20(4), 1160–1166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumari, S and Subbotin, SA (2012) Characterization of Longidorus helveticus (Nematoda: Longidoridae) from the Czech Republic. European Journal of Plant Pathology 133(4), 923–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumari, S, Decraemer, W, De Luca, F and Tiefenbrunner, W (2010) Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 analysis of Xiphinema diversicaudatum, X. pachtaicum, X. simile and X. vuittenezi (Nematoda, Dorylaimida). European Journal of Plant Pathology 127(4), 493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarova, SS, Malloch, G, Oliveira, CMG, Hübschen, J and Neilson, R (2006) Ribosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses of Xiphinema americanum-group populations. Journal of Nematology 38(4), 404–410.Google ScholarPubMed
Loof, PAA and Coomans, A (1972) The oesophageal gland nuclei of Longidoridae (Dorylaimida). Nematologica 18(2), 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micoletzky, H (1922) The free-living soil nematodes. Archiv für Naturgeschichte 87(1), 1–650.Google Scholar
Navas, A, Baldwin, JG, Barrios, L and Nombela, G (1993) Phylogeny and biogeography of Longidorus (Nematoda: Longidoridae) in Euromediterranea. Nematologia Mediterranea 21(1), 71–88.Google Scholar
Neilson, R, Ye, W, Oliveira, CMG, Hübschen, J, Robbins, RT, Brown, DJF and Szalanski, AL (2004) Phylogenetic relationships of Longidoridae species (Nematoda: Dorylaimida) from North America inferred from 18S rDNA sequence data. Helminthologia 41(4), 209–215.Google Scholar
Palomares-Rius, JE, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C and Castillo, P (2014) Cryptic species in plant-parasitic nematodes. Nematology 16(10), 1105–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palomares-Rius, JE, Cantalapiedra-Navarrete, C, Archidona-Yuste, A, Subbotin, SA and Castillo, P (2017) The utility of mtDNA and rDNA for barcoding and phylogeny of plant-parasitic nematodes from Longidoridae (Nematoda, Enoplea). Scientific Reports 7(1), 10905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peneva, V, Lazarova, S, De Luca, F and Brown, DJF (2013) Description of Longidorus cholevae sp. n. (Nematoda, Dorylaimida) from riparian habitat in the Rila Mountains, Bulgaria. ZooKeys 330(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rambaut, A (2014) FigTree v1.4.2, A Graphical Viewer of Phylogenetic Trees. Available at http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/ (accessed 25 November 2018 - v1.4.4).Google Scholar
Robbins, RT, Brown, DJF, Halbrendt, JM and Vrain, TC (1995) Compendium of Longidorus juvenile stages with observation on L. pisi, L. taniwha and L. diadecturus (Nematoda: Longidoridae). Systematic Parasitology 32(1), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, RT, Brown, DJF, Halbrendt, JM and Vrain, TC (1996) Compendium of juvenile stages of Xiphinema species (Nematoda: Longidoridae). Russian Journal of Nematology 4(2), 163–171.Google Scholar
Roca, F (2006) On the identity of two Paralongidorus species (Nematoda: Longidoridae) described from Montenegro and Serbia. Nematology 8(5), 781–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronquist, F and Huelsenbeck, JP (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19(12), 1572–1574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seinhorst, JW (1966) Killing nematodes for taxonomic study with hot F.A. 4:1. Nematologica 12(1), 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subbotin, SA, Rogozhin, EA and Chizhov, VN (2014) Molecular characterisation and diagnostics of some Longidorus species (Nematoda: Longidoridae) from Russia and other countries using rRNA genes. European Journal of Plant Pathology 138, 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, G (1935) Notes on free-living and plant-parasitic nematodes. II. Proceedings Helminthological Society of Washington 2(1), 96–98.Google Scholar
Trisciuzzi, N, Archidona-Yuste, A, Troccoli, A, Fanelli, E, De Luca, F, Vovlas, N and Castillo, P (2015) Description of a new needle nematode, Longidorus asiaticus n. sp. (Nematoda: Longidoridae), from the rhizosphere of crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) bonsai trees imported into Italy from China. European Journal of Plant Pathology 143, 567–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrain, TC, Wakarchuk, DA, Levesque, AC and Hamilton, RI (1992) Intraspecific rDNA restriction fragment length polymorphism in the Xiphinema americanum group. Fundamental and Applied Nematology 15(6), 563–573.Google Scholar
Ye, W, Szalanski, AL and Robbins, RT (2004) Phylogenetic relationships and genetic variation in Longidorus and Xiphinema species (Nematoda: Longidoridae) using ITS1 sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA. Journal of Nematology 36(1), 14–19.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Longidorus maginicus n. sp. (drawings). (a) female neck region; (b) female anterior region; (c) detail of posterior genital branch; (d) female tail; and (e, f) male tail.

Figure 1

Table 1. Morphometrics of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. from of spiny madwort (Ptilotrichum spinosum (L.) Boiss.) in Albanchez de Mágina, Jaén province, Spain). All measurements are in μm and in the form: mean ± standard deviation (range).

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Light micrographs of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. (a) entire female; (b–e) female anterior end showing guiding ring (arrowed); (f) vulval region; (g–k) female tail; (l) entire male; (m–q) male tail with details of spicules, lateral guiding piece and ventromedian supplements (arrowed); and (r–u) tail region of 1st, 2nd and 4th stage juveniles (J1, J2 and J4). Abbreviations: a = anus; gr = guiding ring; lp = lateral guiding piece; sp = spicule; V = vulva; vspl = ventromedian supplement. (Scale bars: a, l = 100 μm; b–k, m–u = 20 μm).

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Scanning electron microscope micrographs of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. (a, b) female anterior end in lateral view showing outer labial papillae (lp) and lateral body pore (lbp); (c, d) female lip region showing labial papillae (lp) and amphidial aperture (aa) arrowed; (e) en face view showing oral aperture (oa) arrowed; (f) vulval region showing vulva (V) and lateral body pore (lbp); (g) female tail showing anus (a); and (h): male posterior body region showing anus and ventromedian supplements. Abbreviations: a = anus; aa = amphidial aperture; lbp = lateral body pore; lp = labial papilla; oa = oral aperture; V = vulva; vspl = ventromedian supplement. (Scale bars: a, f, g = 10 μm; b = 2 μm; c–e = 1 μm; h = 50 μm).

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Relationship of body length to length of functional and replacement odontostyle (Odt and rOdt, respectively) length in all developmental stages from first-, second and fourth-stage juveniles (J1, J2 and J4) and mature females of Longidorus maginicus n. sp.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Phylogenetic relationships of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. with species of Longidorus. Bayesian 50% majority rule consensus tree as inferred from D2 and D3 expansion domains of 28S rDNA sequence alignment under the GTR + I+ G model (−lnL = 16,234.1335; Akaike information criterion  = 32,936.2669; freqA = 0.2265; freqC = 0.2250; freqG = 0.2913; freqT = 0.2571; R(a) = 0.9207; R(b) = 2.7156; R(c) = 1.6004; R(d) = 0.4273; R(e) = 5.2793; R(f) = 1.0000; Pinva = 0.3230; and shape = 0.8070). Posterior probabilities more than 0.70 are given for appropriate clades. Newly obtained sequences in this study are shown in boldface type, and coloured box indicates clade association of the new species. Scale bar = expected changes per site.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Phylogenetic relationships of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. with species of Longidorus. Bayesian 50% majority rule consensus tree as inferred from ITS rDNA sequence alignment under the GTR + I+ G model (−lnL = 9666.2264; Akaike information criterion = 19,420.4529; freqA = 0.2695; freqC = 0.1995; freqG = 0.2704; freqT = 0.2606; R(a) = 0.9112; R(b) = 2.6397; R(c) = 1.4133; R(d) = 0.7800; R(e) = 4.0411; R(f) = 1.0000; Pinva = 0.2010; and shape = 1.2680). Posterior probabilities more than 0.70 are given for appropriate clades. Newly obtained sequences in this study are shown in boldface type, and coloured box indicates clade association of the new species. Scale bar = expected changes per site.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Phylogenetic relationships of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. with species of Longidorus. Bayesian 50% majority rule consensus tree as inferred from 18S rDNA sequence alignment under the GTR + I+ G model (−lnL = 6419.3228; Akaike information criterion = 13,210.6455; freqA = 0.2726; freqC = 0.2111; freqG = 0.2616; freqT = 0.2547; R(a) = 1.2039; R(b) = 3.4138; R(c) = 1.7952; R(d) = 0.4804; R(e) = 7.2334; R(f) = 1.0000; Pinva  = 0.7480; and shape = 0.5440). Posterior probabilities more than 0.70 are given for appropriate clades. Newly obtained sequences in this study are shown in boldface type, and coloured box indicates clade association of the new species. Scale bar = expected changes per site.

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Phylogenetic relationships of Longidorus maginicus n. sp. with species of Longidorus. Bayesian 50% majority-rule consensus trees as inferred from cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (coxI) mtDNA gene sequence alignments under the TRN + I + G model (−lnL = 9999.6926; Akaike information criterion = 20,249.3853; freqA = 0.3063; freqC = 0.1721; freqG = 0.1875; freqT = 0.3341; R(a) = 1.0000; R(b) = 7.1246; R(c) = 1.0000; R(d) = 1.0000; R(e) = 47.8802; R(f) = 1.0000; Pinva = 0.3720; and shape = 0.327). Posterior probabilities more than 0.70 are given for appropriate clades. Newly obtained sequences in this study are shown in boldface type, and coloured box indicates clade association of the new species. Scale bar = expected changes per site.