Widely distributed species often show strong phylogeographic structure, with lineages potentially adapted to different biotic and abiotic conditions. The success of an invasion process may thus depend on the intraspecific identity of the introduced propagules. However, pest risk analyses are usually performed without accounting for intraspecific diversity. In this study, we developed bioclimatic models using MaxEnt and boosted regression trees approaches, to predict the potential distribution in Europe of six economically important Tephritid pests (Ceratitis fasciventris (Bezzi), Bactrocera oleae (Rossi), Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart), Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann), Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh) and Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillet)). We considered intraspecific diversity in our risk analyses by independently modeling the distributions of conspecific lineages. The six species displayed different potential distributions in Europe. A strong signal of intraspecific climate envelope divergence was observed in most species. In some cases, conspecific lineages differed strongly in potential distributions suggesting that taxonomic resolution should be accounted for in pest risk analyses. No models (lineage- and species-based approaches) predicted high climatic suitability in the entire invaded range of B. oleae-the only species whose intraspecific identity of invading populations has been elucidated-in California. Host availability appears to play the most important role in shaping the geographic range of this specialist pest. However, climatic suitability values predicted by species-based models are correlated with population densities of B. oleae globally reported in California. Our study highlights how classical taxonomic boundaries may lead to under- or overestimation of the potential pest distributions and encourages accounting for intraspecific diversity when assessing the risk of biological invasion.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2021.
All research outputs
#9,471,229
of 27,623,513 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#132,864
of 239,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,811
of 278,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,519
of 5,993 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,623,513 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 239,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,993 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
