Fig 1.
Crossing scheme to place the nuclear background N1 (The chromosome set is indicated by the white bar in the center of the gray rectangular boxes) into the mitochondrial background Ma (represented as A in a circle).
In each generation “F” (indicated by the numbers), a single female offspring of the previous generation was mated with a male from the McomN1 line (giving rise to offspring with the genetic makeup shown to the right of the equals sign). With repeated backcrossing to males from the McomN1 line, an ever-increasing proportion of the nuclear genome of the backcrossed females (MaHyb) has the N1 type.
Fig 2.
High-resolution melt curves for mitochondrial types A, B and C. Each type was consistently identifiable by the number and position of peaks.
Height of peaks represents the relative fluorescence; the x axis indicates the temperature at the time that each reading was taken.
Fig 3.
Offspring generated by the different isofemale lines of Trichogramma pretiosum on Ephestia kuehniella eggs as host.
Temperature 25±1°C, RH 60±10%, photophase 14h. Differences among the isofemale lines with the same mitochondrial background, are indicated by lower-case letters above columns with the same shade, as assessed using a Tukey test (p<0.05). Differences among the different mitochondrial backgrounds in each isofemale line are indicated by uppercase letters above the columns, as assessed using a Tukey test (p<0.05). I—Isofemale line classified as the “Best”; II—Isofemale line classified as the “Worst”; III—Isofemale line classified as “Intermediate”.
Fig 4.
Sex ratio of the different isofemale lines of Trichogramma pretiosum on Ephestia kuehniella eggs as host.
Temperature 25±1°C, RH 60±10%, photophase 14h. Differences among the isofemale lines with the same mitochondrial background, are indicated by lower-case letters above columns with the same shade, as assessed using a Tukey test (p<0.05). Differences among the different mitochondrial backgrounds in each isofemale line are indicated by uppercase letters above the columns, as assessed using a Tukey test (p<0.05). I—Isofemale line classified as the “Best”; II—Isofemale line classified as the “Worst”; III—Isofemale line classified as “Intermediate”.
Table 1.
Ranked lines of Trichogramma pretiosum used in the field releases.
Fig 5.
Field success of “Best”, “Intermediate” and “Worst” laboratory-ranked lines of Trichogramma pretiosum in two separate releases, measured as: A and D) Number of offspring recovered and analysed by qPCR; B and E) Parasitism of the isofemale lines in the field, measured by the number of trap cards parasitized; and C and F) Co-occurrence (%) of the isofemale lines (measured by the total number of isolines present on the trap cards).
A), B) and C) first release; D), E) and F) second release.
Table 2.
Estimates of the parameters of the linear mixed models for progeny number, total of trap cards occupied (%) and abundance of lines per trap card for the three different isofemale lines and days after they were released.
Table 3.
Chi-square of expected and observed parasitism of Trichogramma pretiosum isofemale lines in field experiment.