Next Article in Journal
Fish Diversity along the Mekong River and Delta Inferred by Environmental-DNA in a Period of Dam Building and Downstream Salinization
Next Article in Special Issue
Abnormal Proventriculus in Bumble Bee Males
Previous Article in Journal
Revision of the Plagiothecium cavifolium complex (Bryophyta: Plagiotheciaceae)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

DNA Barcoding of Stingless Bees (Hymenoptera: Meliponini) in Northern Peruvian Forests: A Plea for Integrative Taxonomy

1
Department of Science, Roma Tre University, Viale Guglielmo Marconi, 00146 Roma, Italy
2
Department of Biology and Biotechnology “Charles Darwin”, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell’Università, 00185 Roma, Italy
3
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Jr. Maynas, Tarapoto 22200, Peru
4
Asociación Manga Manga de Salitral-Gestor ACP Mangamanguilla, Piura 20000, Peru
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2022, 14(8), 632; https://doi.org/10.3390/d14080632
Submission received: 15 July 2022 / Revised: 4 August 2022 / Accepted: 6 August 2022 / Published: 9 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diversity, Systematics and Evolution of Hymenoptera)

Abstract

:
Stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Meliponini) are among the most important pollinators of tropical forests. Peru is considered a hotspot of biodiversity of Meliponini, but many areas of this country (e.g., Peruvian Amazon) remain unexplored. We aimed to produce a first inventory of stingless bee species dwelling in humid and seasonally dry forests of northern Peru by combining traditional (morphologically-based) taxonomy and DNA barcoding. Specimens were collected in 2020 at five sites located in San Martin and Piura regions. We identified 12 genera of Meliponini. Among those, Trigona and Plebeia were the most abundant (45.9% and 12.8% respectively), whereas Nannotrigona and Scaura were the least represented ones (2.3%). We assigned a reliable species identification to about 30% of specimens (Trigona amazonensis, T. muzoensis, T. williana, Partamona testacea, Scaura tenuis, Tetragona goettei, and Tetragonisca angustula). Yet, more than a half of the specimens received a provisional identification (e.g., Geotrigona cf. fulvohirta, T. cf. amalthea, T. cf. fuscipennis, T. cf. hypogea, Melipona cf. cramptoni, Partamona cf. epiphytophila, Ptilotrigona cf. perenae, Scaura cf. latitarsis, Tetragona cf. clavipes, Trigonisca cf. atomaria). We also highlighted an extensive polyphyly that affected a number of currently recognized species (e.g., T. fulviventris, T. guianae, Plebeia franki, P. frontalis, M. eburnea, M. illota), whose members were split into various clades. Finally, 16% of individuals failed to be identified at the species level (Trigona sp. 1, T. sp. 2, Nannotrigona sp., Partamona sp., Scaptotrigona sp. 1, S. sp. 2, Trigonisca sp. 1, and Trigonisca sp. 2). We discuss our findings according to the current faunistic and biogeographic knowledge of Meliponini in Peru and the Neotropical region. We also remark on the importance of conducting a taxonomic revision of stingless bees and improving both their morphology-based identification keys and BOLD repository. Finally, we claim that integrative taxonomy shall be strongly implemented to truly assess the biodiversity of Neotropical stingless bees, allowing conserving these important pollinators and the associated traditional meliponiculture in an effective manner.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The pantropical tribe Meliponini (Hymenoptera: Apidae) counts over 500 species and represents the most diverse group among corbiculate bees [1]. These eusocial bees, also known as stingless bees for their atrophied stings, are the main pollinators of tropical forests [2]. They are numerically dominant within bee communities in the Neotropical region, dwelling in forests, savannahs, or other habitats with open vegetation [3,4,5].
Before the arrival of Apis mellifera in the New World, stingless bees played an important role in pre-Columbian civilizations, providing honey, wax, and pollen [6]. Nowadays, Meliponini are traditionally reared by native populations of South America to exploit the biological and therapeutic properties of their honeys and related products [7]. In addition, modern breeding techniques are being developed to enhance the pollination of several crops by stingless bees [8,9,10,11].
With about 175 species, Peru is considered a hotspot of biodiversity of Meliponini in the Neotropics [12]. However, this is likely a conservative estimate of the real biodiversity of Meliponini in the country, because a comprehensive faunistic database of Peruvian stingless bees is far from being complete. In fact, although some inventories have been compiled in the past [12,13,14,15,16,17,18], many areas of the country have been scarcely explored and many aspects of their biology and ecology remain to be understood [19]. Moreover, species recognition of stingless bees is often hindered by the lack of dichotomous keys or any other valuable sources to attain a correct species identification (e.g., illustrated keys with high-quality images) in understudied genera and species complexes.
In the last decades, DNA barcoding [20,21] has represented a genetic tool of paramount importance to taxonomically identify those bee species [22,23,24,25] for which dichotomous keys were unavailable and/or whose morphologically-based identification proved challenging [26,27]. Thus far, most of the sequences from the barcode fragment of cytochrome oxidase I (COI) of Meliponini have been acquired to support morphometric data, resolve some specific taxonomic issues [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37], or conduct phylogenetic and phylogeographic studies [38,39]. These sequence data, together with those acquired from museum stingless bee specimens, currently populate the barcode reference database BoldSystems, which counts over 2500 DNA sequences from Meliponini specimens, for a total of about 350 recognized species. This referenced sequence collection may offer a valuable background to help species identification of stingless bees by non-experts, but the robustness of this repository and its efficacy in truly helping the taxonomic identification of newly-collected specimens has never been thoroughly evaluated. In fact, no taxonomic survey has been carried out so far in the Neotropical region by using DNA barcoding to assess the biodiversity of Meliponini locally.
Through comparisons of morphologically- and DNA barcoding-based identification, we aimed to produce a first inventory of stingless bee species dwelling in humid and seasonal dry forests of San Martin and Piura regions in Northern Peru. In doing so, we evaluated the state-of-the-art and usefulness of combining traditional morphologically-based taxonomy and DNA barcoding in diagnosing field-collected individuals. We also highlighted an extensive COI polyphyly in a number of morphologically-recognized species of stingless bees, which encourages future research to solve the taxonomy of some groups within this tribe in the Neotropics and deepen their biogeographic history.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sites and Stingless Bee Sampling

Specimens of stingless bees were collected in July–November 2020 in 5 sites located in the San Martin and Piura regions of Northern Peru: Juliampampa (JP), Pabloyacu (PY), Pongo de Caynarachi (POA), Utcurarca (UT), and Mangamanguilla (MA) (Figure 1). Sites were selected based on their accessibility and by referring to the Forest Zoning Map of San Martin Region [40] and the Map of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Peru [41]. Three sites were located in rainforests: JP (800–110 m a.s.l. and −6°26′ 3.5556 N; −76°19′ 47.5896 E), PY (950–1200 m a.s.l. and −6°4′ 6.3984 N −76°56′ 24.8388 E), POA (150–550 m a.s.l. and −6°21′ 22.608 N; −76°17′ 3.174 E); the other two in seasonally dry forests: UT (250–550 m a.s.l. and −6°39′ 43.7616 N; −76°17′ 0.438 E) and MA (140–450 m a.s.l. and −5°18′ 46.5228 N; −79°51′ 51.084 E). The dry forest UT is isolated from that of MA by the Andean chain, presenting a distinct annual rainfall regime (UT: 1164.4–1433.3 mm; MA: 162–793 mm at altitudes below 600 m) [42,43]. The greatest drought of MA is due to the influence of subtropical atmospheric subsidence and the rain-shadow effect of the Andean Cordillera, which prevents the Amazon humid air from reaching the Pacific coast [43].
At each site, we walked 5 random transects of 1 km each, catching stingless bees both with direct and indirect methods. The direct method consisted of capturing flying bees with sweep nets on flowers, near water sources, or from wild colonies encountered 5 m right or left of the transect line [44]. For the indirect method, we installed 4 baited stations every 200 m along the transect, consisting of plates containing rotten fish, fermented fruits, and dog feces [12]. Furthermore, at the baited stations we sprayed on vegetation (30 to 100 cm above the ground; 15 sprays) a solution of honey and water in the ratio of 1:2 (v:v) honey: water with salt (NaCl) [45]. Stingless bees were captured with sweep nets at the baited stations 60 min after their installation. Sampling, conducted on sunny and windless days by 4 operators, started at 8:00 a.m. and ended up at 4:00 p.m. All specimens were preserved in 96% ethanol for further analysis.

2.2. Morphological and DNA Barcoding Data Collection

Stingless bees were identified based on their morphology according to dichotomous keys, when available, and/or by relying on diagnostic photographs [18,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. A Zeiss Axio Zoom V16 microscope was used for the observation of diagnostic morphological characters. Multifocal digital images of the specimens were acquired by the software ZEN 2.3 pro. The software HELICON FOCUS 6.7.1 was used to combine stacking images taken at different focus distances.
COI barcode fragments were generated from each collected specimen by extracting the total genomic DNA from one middle leg following the “salting out” procedure [59]. Extracted DNA was then eluted in 100 μL H2O milliq and stored at −20 °C. PCR was performed to amplify the 650 bp barcode fragment of COI by using primers LCO1490 (5′-GGT CAA CAA ATC ATA AAG ATA TTGG-3′) and HCO2198 (5′-TAA ACT TCA GGG TGA CCA AAAAAT CA-3′) [60]. PCR was conducted in a total reaction volume of 25 μL, containing 0.5 pmol of each primer, 10 mM Tris-Cl, pH 8.3 and 50 mM KCl, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 2.5 mM dNTPs, 2 μL of the DNA template, and 1 unit of Taq DNA polymerase (Meridian, Douglas, CO, USA). PCR cycling conditions consisted of an initial denaturation of 3 min at 94 °C followed by 35 cycles of 30 s at 94 °C, 30 s at 50 °C, and 1 min at 72 °C, with a final elongation step of 10 min at 72 °C. Products were visualized on a 1% agarose gel stained using Midori Green Advance dye (Nippon Genetics Europe, Düren, Germany). PCR products were purified using the ExoSAP-IT™ PCR Product Cleanup Reagent (Applied Biosystem) and sent to the sequencing facility of Microsynth AG (Balgach, Switzerland).
Sequences were deposited in GenBank under Acc. n° OP093417–OP093549. All specimen vouchers were deposited in Estudios Amazonicos Biological Material Depositary Center (Tarapoto, Peru).

2.3. Species Identification

COI sequences were edited and aligned with Staden Package 2.0.0b11-2016 (http://staden.sourceforge.net/ accessed on 1 February 2021. The identification tool in BOLD (http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/IDS_OpenIdEngine, accessed on 1 February 2021) was used to taxonomically identify our specimens. Their attribution to species was based on Kimura 2-parameter (K2P) corrected genetic distances [61] with a threshold of 3% as a cut-off value [20]. Refined single linkage analysis (RESL) in BOLD [62] was used to obtain the BINs corresponding to the taxonomic categories. For each identified stingless bee genus, we aligned the COI sequences obtained from our sample with those available in BOLD and NCBI repositories. To do so, we generated a non-redundant database of COI sequences archived in public repositories of GenBank and BOLD for each genus of Meliponini (Geotrigona n = 1; Melipona n = 182; Nannotrigona n = 1; Scaptotrigona n = 136; Partamona n = 101; Plebeia n = 102; Ptilotrigona n = 5; Scaura n = 11; Tetragona n = 20; Tetragonisca n = 1469; Trigona n = 100; Trigonisca n = 3). To assess the relationships among our query sequences and their neighboring reference sequences, we built consensus (distance-based) neighbor joining (NJ) phylogenetic trees (500 bootstrap replicates, K2P model, midpoint rooted) using MEGA 11 [63]. Barcode-phylogenetic trees generated for the various stingless bee genera were only built to evaluate the clustering of sequences from the same (predicted) species in monophyletic clades (not to trace evolutionary histories).
The final attribution of the species name to each individual was achieved by relying on its identification obtained through BOLD (BOLD ID) and morphology (MORPHO ID), and by considering the relative position of analyzed specimens within the comprehensive genus-level phylogenetic trees (see Table 1 caption for further details).
For each generated dataset, we also performed species delimitation methods (SDMs), i.e., ASAP [64] (https://bioinfo.mnhn.fr/abi/public/asap/asapweb.html, accessed on 1 June 2021), PTP, and bPTP [65] (https://species.h-its.org/ptp/https://bioinfo.mnhn.fr/abi/public/asap/asapweb.html, accessed on 1 June 2021) to possibly highlight the presence of independently evolving lineages. Maximum likelihood (ML) input trees for PTP and bPTP analyses were generated with MEGA 11 [63] (NNI heuristic method, K2P model).

3. Results

COI barcode fragments were obtained from a total of 133 specimens of Peruvian stingless bees. Except for five specimens (JP29, JPA0015-1, JPA0016-1, POA44, and MA51), molecular data attributed everyone to the correct stingless bee genus (Table 1). Among the 12 identified genera, Trigona and Plebeia were the most abundant, constituting 45.9% and 12.8% of the total sample, respectively, whereas Nannotrigona and Scaura were the least represented (2.3%) (Supplementary Material Figure S1).
The relative presence of Meliponini genera varied across sampling sites, with some of them found exclusively in a single site (Nannotrigona in MA and Partamona in JP), while some others were specific to certain forest ecosystems, e.g., rainforests (Melipona in JP, POA, and PY, and Scaura in JP and POA) (Figure S1).
By integrating molecular and morphological data, we assigned a reliable species-specific identification to 40 specimens (30.1% of the whole sample). The identification was provisional for 72 individuals (54.1%), but likely to be definitive after comparing our specimens with reference material or consulting a specialist of the taxon (=cf.). Finally, the ascription of 21 individuals (15.8%) at the species level remained uncertain (=sp.) (Table 1). The final identification obtained for individuals identified within each stingless bee genus is detailed in Table 1 (see also results of SDMs in Table S1).

3.1. Genus Trigona

Approximately one-third of specimens (n = 20; 33%) of Trigona were determined unambiguously at the species level (Table 1). Based on genetic (BOLD % similarity = 98.5) and morphological data, we consistently ascribed 10 individuals (clustering in a monophyletic clade; bootstrap = 69) to T. muzoensis. In addition, six and four individuals were consistently assigned to T. amazonensis and T. williana, respectively, as they showed (i) high matching scores with conspecific entries in BOLD (% range of similarity = 98.6–99.3 and 97.9–98.6, respectively) (Table 1), (ii) an intra-specific phylogenetic cohesion (bootstrap = 100) (Figure 2), and (iii) a morphological identification (52) coherent with barcode determination (Figure S2). Unfortunately, public sequence data were not available for T. amazonensis and T. williana in BOLD and, thus, an assessment of their monophyletic condition remained unexplored.
Most Trigona individuals (n = 37; 61%) were attributed with a certain degree of uncertainty (cf.) to previously described species (Table 1). First, we cautiously assigned eight specimens to T. cf. fuscipennis because of an apparent polyphyly for this taxon: in fact, our specimens grouped in a monophyletic clade (bootstrap = 92) including all Costa Rican BOLD conspecifics, except ASINH876-12 (Costa Rica), which, however, appeared distantly related (Figure 2). In any case, all specimens showed diagnostic features of T. fuscipennis [46] (Figure S2).
We also cautiously ascribed seven specimens to T. cf. amalthea: these were all embedded in a highly-supported monophyletic clade (bootstrap = 99), also including two conspecific specimens from Peru (DRBEE009-07) and Bolivia (GBAH0290-06), but not DRBEE010-07 from Belize, which clustered with T. silvestriana (Figure 2). All these seven specimens showed the diagnostic morphological characters reported in Ribeiro (2021) (Figure S2).
Seven other individuals were ascribed to T. cf. hypogea: sequences from these specimens showed a phylogenetic cohesion in the phylogenetic tree (bootstrap = 94) (Figure 2), but four individuals were unidentified by BOLD, whereas the other three received a 97% similarity score with T. hypogea (Table 1). All these seven individuals are morphologically similar, showing the diagnostic characters [48], except for the bristles on the surface of scape that appeared slightly longer (Figure S2).
Specimens attributed by BOLD (% similarity = 98.8–100) to T. fulviventris and T. guianae were overall split into four distinct clades (Figure 2). T. fulviventris showed an extensive polyphyly: BOLD specimens were, in fact, grouped in a clade close to MA individuals, which were further split into two distinct sub-groups, not significantly related to each other (T. cf. fulviventris Clade A and Clade B; Table 1, Figure 2). All specimens from MA showed jaws with four teeth and a predominantly black body with the typical rust/yellowish coloration of T. fulviventris abdomen (46) (Figure 3). On the other hand, the single specimen from UT (UT11) showed the typical elongated black-colored abdomen of T. guianae, hyaline wing membrane, brown C and R veins, light brown pterostigma, and brown microtrichia [52,58] (Figure 3). Coherently, UT11 was identified as T. guianae in BOLD (98.9%) (and also appeared as a well-delimited OTU based on the distance-based SDM; Table S1). All individuals from POA with a black abdomen formed the sister-group of UT11 (Figure 2) and, thus, were assigned to T. cf. guianae Clade A (Table 1; Figure 3). PY individuals also showed a blackish abdomen and formed an additional, but unrelated, group of T. guianae, and hence were assigned to T. cf. guianae Clade B (Figure 2). Apparently, the specimens belonging to the two clades do not show evident morphological differences (Figure 3).
Finally, four Trigona individuals identified by BOLD at the genus level only (Table 1) formed two lineages that were unrelated to all other recognized groups (Figure 2) within Trigona: one included three specimens from JP (JPA009-1, JP10, and JP21), which, hence, were attributed to Trigona sp. 1; the other was formed by a single individual from PY (PY8), which, according to morphology [52,58], could be attributable to T. dallatorreana, but here provisionally named Trigona sp. 2 (Figure 3). This latter, in particular, based on ASAP (Table S1), results in an OTU separated from all other BOLD entries.

3.2. Genus Plebeia

All specimens (n = 17) ascribed to Plebeia received an uncertain taxonomic identification. However, we provisionally ascribed our Peruvian specimens to previously described species (= cf.) waiting for confirmation (Table 1).
In particular, seven specimens (unidentified at the species level by BOLD; Table 1) both from JP (JPA002, JP5, JP16, and JP45) and POA (POA8, POA32, and POA34) clustered in a monophyletic group (bootstrap = 99%), including the BOLD entries SICOB7718-11 (Panama) and GBAH6196-09 (unknown origin) of P. franki. Within this group, our specimens were split into two well-supported but distinct clades (bootstrap = 99 and 83, respectively) (Figure 4). Since morphology did not help identifying these individuals, we provisionally ascribed these specimens to P. cf. franki Clade A or Clade B, respectively. The specimens belonging to Clade A and Clade B do not show distinctive morphological characters (Figure 5). We only observed some polymorphism (but not correlated to the two groupings), as JP5, POA32, and POA34 differed from JP16 and POA8 for the coloring of the abdomen and wing veins, as well as for the shape of abdomen and the pterostigma (Figure 5).
All other Plebeia were identified by BOLD as P. frontalis (% similarity = 98.84–99.84) (Table 1). However, both BOLD entries and sequences obtained from our specimens attributed to this species appeared scattered throughout the phylogenetic tree, revealing an extensive polyphyly for P. frontalis (Figure 4). Our Peruvian sample was split into four main different lineages: (i) P. cf. frontalis Clade A, grouping all specimens from MA (bootstrap = 99); (ii) a poorly supported group (bootstrap = 59), provisionally named P. cf. frontalis Clade B, including samples from JP, POA, and PY, which, however, were somehow morphologically similar; (iii) P. cf. frontalis Clade C, including a single specimen from POA (POA40); and (iv) P. cf. frontalis Clade D, including a single specimen from UT (UT58) (Figure 4). Although all examined Peruvian specimens showed the diagnostic morphological features of P. frontalis [47], we observed in POA40 and UT58 some evident phenotypic differences, such as a yellow abdomen with dark basal bands of the tergites, a yellow coloration of the first two pairs of legs, and some yellow spots in the mesepisterna. Furthermore, the yellow spotting on the posterior tibias extends well beyond the basal part (Figure 5).

3.3. Other Genera

As for Geotrigona, four specimens (JP14, JP67, PY24-1, and MA50) matched with BOLD private entries of Geotrigona fulvohirta (% similarity = 97.39–98.43), consistently with their morphological identification [53] (Table 1, Figure S2).
Peruvian specimens (n = 5) of Melipona (PY23, PY56, JPA0012, JP48, and POA42) were scattered in an overall poorly resolved phylogenetic tree (Figure S3). JP48, POA42, and PY23 were highly similar (99.84–100% similarity) to BOLD private entries of M. eburnea, and, consistently, these owned morphological features typical of the species [18] (Figure S2). Noteworthy, the first two individuals (JP48 and POA42; M. cf. eburnea Clade A) were phylogenetically split apart from the latter (PY23; M. cf. eburnea Clade B) (Figure S3), questioning the actual monophyly of M. eburnea. On the other hand, the morphological inspection of JPA0012 and PY56 did not lead to a reliable species diagnosis (Figure S2), and, therefore, these individuals were provisionally attributed to M. cf. cramptoni (for a 99.33% of similarity with a private entry) and M. cf. illota (for a 99.83% of similarity with a BOLD specimen, though placed elsewhere in the phylogenetic tree; Figure S3), respectively.
We also identified three specimens (MA28-1, MA1, and MA100-1) of Nannotrigona sp. (likely N. mellaria, based on morphological characters [54]; Figure S2), among which one (MA28-1) was erroneously attributed to Geotrigona sp. by BOLD (Table 1).
Morphology [15], BOLD ID (99.52% similarity), and tree reconstruction (bootstrap = 91) were coherent in assigning nine specimens (JP) to Partamona testacea (Table 1, Figures S2 and S3). On the other hand, two specimens from the same locality (JP4 and JPA005) were genetically related to a private BOLD entry (99.84% similarity) of P. epiphytophila. Although this identification was confirmed based on morphology [15] (Figure S2), the lack of public sequences in BOLD obliged us to cautiously attribute these individuals to P. cf. epiphytophila. Finally, a single individual, JPA006, showed a peculiar position within the phylogenetic tree (placed as a sister group of P. testacea + P. mulata) (Figure S3), with no significant affinities with any particular taxon (neither based on BOLD ID). Therefore, this individual was preliminarily attributed to Partamona sp. (Figure S2). Noteworthily, all SDMs pointed to JPA006 as an independently evolving lineage/species (Table S1).
Ptilotrigona individuals collected in JP (n = 2) and POA (n = 3) were genetically attributed to P. pereneae (99.17% similarity). However, too few sequences of Ptilotrigona were available in BOLD to provide a satisfactory phylogenetic reconstruction, and since the morphological distinction between P. pereneae and P. lurida can be somewhat ambiguous [49] (Figure S2), we ascribed these specimens to Ptilotrigona cf. perenae (Table 1).
Four individuals, unambiguously identified through morphology as Scaptotrigona sp., were erroneously attributed to Oxytrigona sp. by BOLD (Table 1). Indeed, these specimens clustered within the phylogenetic tree reconstructed for Scaptotrigona (Figure S3), but separately with respect to all BOLD entries available for this genus. In particular, we ascribed JPA0015-1, JPA0016-1, and POA44 to Scaptotrigona sp. 1 and the slightly diverging specimen MA51 to Scaptotrigona sp. 2 (Figure S2).
Among the three specimens of Scaura, only JP8-1 could be clearly ascribed to Scaura tenuis based on morphology [52] (Figure S2), BOLD identification (98.53% similarity), and tree reconstruction (Figure S3). The remaining two individuals (JPA004 and POA31) were attributed to Scaura cf. latitarsis, as they clustered with other BOLD entries of the same species (although this same clade also embedded BOLD entries of another taxon, i.e., S. argyrea; Figure S3). Based on the species description [66], morphological analyses also confirmed this taxonomic attribution (Figure S2).
Tetragona specimens were split into three groups (Figure S3). Morphology [58] (Figure S2) and BOLD identification were coherent in considering JP12 and POA25 as members of T. clavipes (Table 1), but, due to the low bootstrap support (63%), we provisionally ascribed these specimens to T. cf. clavipes. Specimens identified by BOLD as T. mayarum (95.46–95.67% similarity with BOLD private entries) comprised a well-supported clade (bootstrap = 100), sister to T. ziegleri. Since morphological analyses did not allow confirming their genetic identification, we decided not to assign species-specific naming to these specimens (Tetragona sp.) (Figure S2). Finally, specimens ascribed to T. goettei (99.51–100% BOLD similarity) formed a monophyletic cluster (Figure S3), and the attribution at the species rank was also confirmed on a morphological basis [52] (Figure S2).
Tetragonisca specimens all belong to T. angustula, as confirmed by morphology [46] (Figure S2) and genetics (Table 1).
As for Trigonisca, JP29 unequivocally belonged to this genus (Trigonisca sp. 1) but was erroneously attributed by BOLD to Plebeia (Table 1, Figure S2). On the other hand, MA9-1 (99.64% in BOLD) was clearly attributed to Trigonisca atomaria: however, this “wholly-black” individual of T. atomaria (Figure S2) diverged morphologically from the partially reddish-colored of a (seemingly) conspecific specimen from Tumbes dry forest [16]. Since dichotomous keys to recognize this species are not available, we provisionally considered this individual as T. cf. atomaria (Table 1, Figure S2). Finally, it was not possible to attribute a taxonomic identification for specimen MA2, which, hence, was named as Trigonisca sp. 2 (Table 1, Figure S2).

4. Discussion

By comparing morphologically- and molecularly-based species diagnoses, we provided the first faunistic inventory of stingless bees inhabiting humid and seasonally dry forests of San Martin and Piura regions, which have been, thus far, poorly explored for Meliponini biodiversity.
Overall, with few exceptions, both morphological and DNA barcoding approaches were coherent at identifying stingless bee genera. In fact, DNA barcode-based misidentifications at the genus level only affected the recognition of five specimens, which, based on morphology, were unambiguously ascribed to Nannotrigona, Scaptotrigona, and Trigonisca (Table 1). Although morphology alone allows an easy discrimination of genera of Neotropical Meliponini, these extrinsic errors of the DNA barcode tool due to the inclusion of wrongly identified sequences into the reference database [67] may accumulate over time and impede a correct genetic identification of stingless bees. These errors shall be corrected by double-checking deposited sequences and associated metadata (e.g., type of voucher, geographical coordinates, images, etc.) to avoid major mistakes in taxonomic identifications.
Beyond the few inconsistencies observed, all identified genera were largely expected based on the faunistic checklists available for Peruvian Meliponini [12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Among them, Trigona and Plebeia were the most abundant, ubiquitously found in all five localities (Table 1), which is consistent with the high speciosity and abundance of these two Meliponini genera in the Neotropics [68]. On the other hand, despite being the largest Neotropical stingless bee genus—counting about 74 species [68]—Melipona was not abundant in our collection (Table 1). Although disconcerting, the scarcity of Melipona spp. could be due to the susceptibility of these species to deforestation and its restriction to well-preserved areas and particular habitat types of relatively high quality [12,69,70].
Other genera occurred exclusively at a single site, such as Partamona and Nannotrigona. Their limited localization seems odd as these two genera are very common and widely distributed in the Neotropics [15], even in urbanized and disturbed areas [54]. Other genera (e.g., Melipona, Scaura, Ptilotrigona) were recorded in humid ecosystems only, but this might simply reflect undersampling in seasonally dry forests during a period when flowering is limited. In addition, given that nesting biology is highly diverse and unknown in many species of Meliponini, the scarce availability of nesting substrates (e.g., some Scaura species need both termite mounds and pre-existing cavities for nesting [58]) could also have limited the presence of certain genera to some areas.
Unexpectedly, we did not record genera already collected in humid forests of the northern Peruvian Amazon, such as those reported in Cerro Escalera and Alto Mayo of the San Martin region (Celetrigona, Dolichotrigona, Lestrimelitta, Oxytrigona, and Paratrigona [12,13,14,15,16,17]) or in the Loreto region (Nogueirapis, Aparatrigona, Schwarzula, Frieseomelitta, and Leurotrigona [18]). Similarly, Cephalotrigona was not collected, although reported in the humid forests of Alto Mayo and Loreto region [17,18], as well as in the dry forest of Tumbes [16].
These inconsistencies could be explained by a difficulty of sampling elusive genera, either because of their limited geographic distribution in the Neotropics (e.g., Noguerapis), or a low local abundance despite their extensive geographic ranges (e.g., Celetrigona, Cephalotrigona, Aparatrigona, Leurotrigona, and Schwarzula) [51]. Additional faunistic surveys will be needed to assess the abundance and actual distributional patterns of the observed (or so-far-undetected) Meliponini genera and confirm their possible peculiar localization in different biomes of the northern Peruvian forests.
In general, morphology-based species identification matched with those provided by BOLD (Table 1), which, hence, appears as an affordable tool to recognize stingless bee taxa accepted by the current taxonomy. However, many collected specimens were not recognized at the species level (these were just ascribed to genera Trigona, Tetragona, Partamona, Trigonisca, and Scaptotrigona) and, hence, their identity shall be ascertained.
Most of the identified species were previously reported in Peru [12,16,17,18], except for Melipona cf. cramptoni, Plebeia cf. frontalis, and P. cf. franki (Table 1). In fact, M. cramptoni (a “dark form” of M. fulva Lepeletier, 1836 [51]) is known to be distributed in Colombia, Guyana, Venezuela, and Brazil; P. franki in Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia, whereas P. frontalis in Central America (e.g., in Mexico [47]) and to a lesser extent in South America, where it seems southward limited to Colombia [51]. It is worth noting, however, that a comparison of P. cf. frontalis from MA (Figure 5) with a photographed, and phenotypically similar, individual of Plebeia sp. of the Tumbesian dry forest [16] would allow confirming if the occurrence in Peru of this taxon was already recorded.
Comprehensive phylogenetic reconstructions at the genus level were mostly characterized by weakly supported nodes and/or extensive polyphyly (Figure 2, Figure 4 and Figure S3). In particular, Trigona and Plebeia (Figure 2 and Figure 4), but also Melipona and Scaura (Figure S3), showed incompletely resolved COI phylogenetic trees. Consequently, the accuracy of DNA barcoding to correctly identify Neotropical Meliponini appears hindered by a lack of reliable “barcoding gaps” (i.e., the separation between intraspecific variation and interspecific divergence estimated on the basis of the mitochondrial COI fragment) delimiting species boundaries (an intrinsic error of the barcoding method [67]). This raises concerns about the robustness of diagnostic morphological characters currently used to distinguish Neotropical Meliponini at the species rank.
In addition, the lack of public sequences in BOLD for some species (e.g., T. amazonensis, T. muzoensis, and T. williana) do not allow evaluating their genetic cohesion, which, then, should be thoroughly assessed in the next future.
Concurrently to a poorly-established taxonomy, the pervasive intraspecific gene pool fragmentation could be the result of paleoclimatic and geological (e.g., Andean uplift; see [50,51]) events that are known to have profoundly contributed to the origin and evolution of Neotropical biodiversity [71]. The rise and fall of biogeographic barriers and, in some cases, bee–plant specialization [72], likely triggered isolation at both large (e.g., continental) and small (e.g., regional) geographical scales [73], favoring a rapid genetic diversification of Meliponini.
For instance, vicariance events due to the Andean uplift likely promoted the subdivision of the species pair distributed on either side of the Andean mountain range, i.e., the Amazonian T. amalthea and the Central American/Western Ecuadorian T. silvestriana [74]. Although both taxa seemed to lack a genetic intraspecific coherence (possibly due to extrinsic errors affecting some BOLD specimens) (Figure 2), all Peruvian individuals were recognized as T. cf. amalthea, consistently with their localization (Table 1, Figure 2). A large-scale isolation-by-distance (IBD) process caused by barriers to dispersion along the Neotropical region (lasting until at least 50 Ma between South and North/Central America [75]) could explain the observed divergence between the Central American clade of T. cf. fulviventris (Belize, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Honduras) and the Peruvian lineage (Figure 2). A regional IBD would instead account for the split of T. cf. guianae into two distinct but geographically coherent clades (Figure 2) (i.e., Clade A: POA+UT; Clade B: PY). These past events, that likely limited gene flow, further hamper the resolution of taxonomic uncertainties already challenging the systematics of T. fulviventris and T. guianae, as well as the boundaries of their actual distribution [51,76]. T. fulviventris mainly differs from T. guianae for the rust/yellowish metasome, but its abdomen can occasionally appear black-colored, as it is, yet, typical of T. guianae [46] (Figure 3). Then, although T. fulviventris is considered more widely distributed than T. guianae, their relative geographic (partially overlapping) ranges remain doubtful [51]. Concerning Peru, T. guianae has been previously recorded in humid forests of San Martin and Loreto [12,17,18]. In the Tumbesian dry forest, however, this same taxon was considered a subspecies of T. fulviventris (i.e., T. f. guianae) [16], although its nomenclature should be carefully re-examined. In fact, all Peruvian T. cf. fulviventris were collected in the seasonally dry forest of MA, suggesting a possible southward extension of the current geographic range limit of this species (placed at the southwestern sector of Ecuador [51]) to include the whole Tumbes–Piura dry forest ecoregion.
Being the second largest genus of Neotropical Meliponini [68], recognition of species of Plebeia through barcoding appeared particularly challenging. In fact, P. cf. frontalis was largely affected by polyphyly, yet apparently clustering in a geographically coherent manner (Figure 4). The genetic peculiarity of MA specimens of P. cf. frontalis (Clade A) with respect to conspecifics from humid forests (Clade B) may reflect the outstanding biological value and elevated degree of endemism of Tumbes–Piura dry forests [77]. Members of P. cf. frontalis included in Clade C + D appeared with a different habitus (Figure 5), and then they could belong to a different species. This, however, should be ascertained considering a thoroughly systematic revision of the genus. The barcode-based assignment of Peruvian specimens to Plebeia franki, not confirmed by morphology, is also puzzling, as this species has never been recorded in Peru [51].
Overall, our results emphasize the importance of conducting a taxonomic revision of the tribe by incorporating distinct methods to species identification of Meliponini, as recommended in integrative taxonomy. Consequently, morphology-based identification tools shall be revised, updated, and made available to non-expert taxonomists to attain reliable species diagnoses. Based on these prerequisites, the BOLD database shall be revised and expanded: in fact, genera of Neotropical stingless bees are unevenly represented, being some (e.g., Trigona, Melipona, and Partamona) more populated of public (downloadable) COI sequences than others (e.g., Nannotrigona, Trigonisca, Tetragona, Scaura, Geotrigona, and Ptilotrigona). This unequal representation of Neotropical Meliponini in BOLD originates from the application of the COI fragment to resolve, along with morphometric data, some taxonomic issues related to single genera/species, in particular to, e.g., highlight isolated reproductive units within Scaptotrigona hellwegeri [78], Melipona yucatanica [29], Melipona beecheii [30], and Tetragonula iridipennis [33]; ii) detect specific entities within (Mexican) Scaptotrigona [32] and Tetragonula [37]; and iii) resolve taxonomic ambiguities in Malagasy Liotrigona spp. [28] and Kenyan Hypotrigona spp. [36]. Thus far, only rarely were Meliponini “barcoded” to acquire knowledge on stingless bee biodiversity in some areas where faunistic monitoring was conducted [34,35,36,37].
Integrative taxonomy efforts would certainly allow scaling up the use of DNA barcoding to enlarge knowledge on biodiversity of Meliponini in more areas of the Neotropics. A combined use of the already available and tested mitochondrial and nuclear markers [74,75] would greatly improve taxonomy and identification of stingless bees. Due to their important role in pollination, this knowledge would be crucial to preserve Amazonia and avoid its degradation [79]. The Peruvian forests, especially the Amazonian ones, have suffered in the last decade a significant increase in deforestation, due to the expansion of cocoa plantations, coffee and, especially, oil palms, with a significant impact on the main rainforest regions of San Martin and Ucayali [80]. Much remains to be known about the communities of pollinators living in these forests and the consequences that their populations may suffer because of continuous habitat loss.
Beyond their importance in preserving forest ecosystems, stingless bees are also an integral part of the cultural knowledge of many indigenous peoples around the world [78]. In Peru, many native peoples use their honey for medicinal purposes [81], so the conservation of stingless bees has an additional value. Due to the lack of knowledge about the diversity and the ecology of Meliponini, any species is considered breedable in meliponiculture, so much so as to justify the uncontrolled extraction from the forest of all colonies. On the other hand, not all of them prove to be suitable, and meliponiculture could end up threatening the natural populations of bees instead of benefiting beekeepers. Melipona, Trigona, and Plebeia are among the most frequently reared genera for these purposes in Peru [81]. As already evidenced in Melipona [38], species within these genera present a large genetic diversity and an unsolved phylogeny (Figure 2 and Figure S3) possibly shaped by biogeographic events, which renders genotyping of breedable strains mandatory.
In the light of all these concerns, it is imperative that inventories of stingless bees should be extended to other areas of Peru and, at the same time, that revised species-level studies shall be promoted. Knowing the specific diversity of stingless bee communities in Peru is essential for any conservation action of these important pollinators. Hence, a reliable taxonomic identification of Meliponini is crucial to drive the rural development of New World communities and promote the maintenance of local biodiversity.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d14080632/s1, Figure S1: Relative abundance (%) of stingless bee genera; Figure S2: Representative specimens of different genera/specie of Meliponini collected in San Martin and Piura regions (Peru); Figure S3: Neighbor-Joining COI tree (K2P corrected distances) of (a) Partamona, (b) Ptilotrigona, (c) Tetragona, (d) Scaura, (e) Scaptotrigona and (f) Melipona; Table S1: Classification of stingless bee specimens according to species delimitation methods (ASAP, bPTP, PTP).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.; data curation, M.M., A.M., L.P.A., A.C.M., C.D.V.-G., J.O.L. and E.M.; formal analysis, M.M., A.M. and E.M.; funding acquisition, A.C.M., C.D.V.-G., J.O.L. and A.D.G.; investigation, M.M., P.V.O., A.C.M., C.D.V.-G., J.O.L., A.D.G. and M.M.; methodology, E.M.; project administration, M.M. and J.O.L.; supervision, C.D.V.-G., A.D.G. and E.M.; writing—original draft, M.M. and E.M.; writing—review and editing, M.M., A.D.G. and E.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was financially supported by the Research and Development Institute of the National University of San Martin—Tarapoto as part of the Project “Código Genético de Barras de abejas sin aguijón (Apidae: Meliponini) en San Martín, Amazonia Peruana”; by the Cooperation Project of Sapienza 2022 (Prot. n° 0001626) “Verso una Meliponicoltura Consapevole e Tutela delle Api senza Pungiglione nella Foresta Amazzonica del Perù”; by the Department of Excellence of the University of Roma Tre.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

COI sequences were deposited in Genbank: Acc. n° OP093417–OP093549.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the community of Mangamanguilla for facilitating sampling in the dry forest; Daniel Ushiñahua Ramírez for coordinating sampling activities in the dry forest of Utcurarca; Miguel Tapullima for supporting the sampling in the forest of Juliampampa; Hitler Panduro Salas for leading the expedition in the forest of Pongo de Caynarachi; the NGO Estudios Amazonicos for supporting all the research on the Meliponini of Peru; Matteo Annessi for help with multifocal images of stingless bees.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Michener, C.D. The Meliponini. In Pot-Honey: A Legacy of Stingless Bees, 1st ed.; Vit, P., Pedro, S.R.M., Roubik, D., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Roubik, D.W. Ecology and Natural History of Tropical Bees, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990; p. 526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Silveira, F.A.; Campos, M.J.O. A melissofauna de Corumbataí (SP) e Paraopeba (MG) e uma análise da biogeografia das abelhas do cerrado Brasileiro (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 1995, 3, 371–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Aguiar, C.M.L.; Martins, C.F. Abundância relativa, diversidade e fenologia de abelhas (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) na Caatinga, São João do Cariri, Paraíba, Brasil. Iheringia, Ser. Zool. 1997, 83, 151–163. [Google Scholar]
  5. Viana, B.F.; Kleinert, A.D.P.; Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L. Abundance and flower visits of bees in cerrado of Bahia, tropical Brazil. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 1997, 32, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vit, P.; Pedro, S.R.M.; Roubik, D. Pot-Honey: A Legacy of Stingless Bees, 1st ed.; Vit, P., Pedro, S.R.M., Roubik, D., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; p. 654. [Google Scholar]
  7. Visweswara, R.P.; Thevan, K.K.; Salleh, N.; Hua Gan, S. Biological and therapeutic effects of honey produced by honey bees and stingless bees: A comparative review. Rev. bras. Farmacogn. 2016, 26, 657–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Heard, T.A.T. The role of stingless bees in crop pollination. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1999, 44, 183–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Slaa, E.J.; Sánchez Chaves, L.A.; Malagodi-Braga, K.S.; Hofstede, F.F.E. Stingless bees in applied pollination: Practice and perspectives. Apidologie 2006, 37, 293–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Santos, S.D.; Roselino, A.; Hrncir, M.; Bego, L. Pollination of tomatoes by the stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata and the honey bee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Genet. Mol. Res. 2009, 8, 751–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Meléndez Ramírez, V.; Ayala, R.; Delfín González, H. Crop Pollination by Stingless Bees. In Pot-Pollen in Stingless Bee Melittology, 1st ed.; Vit, P., Pedro, S.R.M., Roubik, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; p. 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rasmussen, C.; Gonzalez, V.H. Abejas sin aguijón del Cerro Escalera, San Martín, Perú (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini). Sist. Agroeco. Mod. Biomatematic. 2009, 2, 26–32. [Google Scholar]
  13. Moure, J.S. Abejas del Perú. Bol. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Javier Prado 1944, 8, 67–75. [Google Scholar]
  14. Baumgartner, D.L.; Roubik, D.W. Ecology of necrophilous and filth-gathering stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponinae) of Peru. J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 1989, 62, 11–22. [Google Scholar]
  15. Pedro, S.R.; Camargo, J.M.F. Meliponini neotropicais: O gênero Partamona Schwarz, 1939 (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2003, 47, 1–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Castillo-Carrillo, P.; Elizalde, R.; Rasmussen, C. Inventario de las abejas nativas sin aguijón (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) en Tumbes-Perú. Revista Notas Apícolas 2016, 16, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sánchez Sandoval, E.Y.; Rasmussen, C. Estudio de polinizadores en la subcuenca del Alto Mayo, región San Martín, Perú; Proyecto Biocuencas Recursos Hydricos y Biodiversidad Andino Amazonicos: Moyobamba, Peru, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rasmussen, C.; Delgado, C. Abejas sin aguijón (Apidae: Meliponini) en Loreto, Perú, 1st ed.; Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana: Iquitos, Peru, 2019; p. 70. [Google Scholar]
  19. Marconi, M.; Modesti, A.; Vecco Giove, C.D.; Mancini, E.; Di Giulio, A. Nest architectures of myrmecophilous stingless bees, Trigona sp. cfr. cilipes and Paratrigona sp., from Peruvian Amazon (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Apinae, Meliponini). Fragmenta entomologica 2022, 54, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hebert, P.D.N.; Cywinska, A.; Ball, S.L.; De Waard, J.R. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. Royal Soc. B. 2003, 270, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Hebert, P.D.N.; Ratnasingham, S.; de Waard, J.R. Barcoding animal life: Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proc. Royal Soc. B. 2003, 270, S96–S99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Francoso, E.; Arias, M.C. Cytochrome c oxidase I primers for corbiculate bees: DNA barcode and mini-barcode. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2013, 13, 844–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schmidt, S.; Schmid-Egger, C.; Moriniere, J.; Haszprunar, G.; Hebert, P.D.N. DNA barcoding largely supports 250 years of classical taxonomy: Identifications for Central European bees (Hymenoptera, Apoideapartim). Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2015, 15, 985–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sheffield, C.; Heron, J.; Gibbs, J.; Onuferko, T.; Oram, R.; Best, L.; DeSilva, N.; Dumesh, S.; Pindar, A.; Rowe, G. Contribution of DNA barcoding to the study of the bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of Canada: Progress to date. Can. Entomol. 2017, 149, 736–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Villalta, I.; Ledet, R.; Baude, M.; Genoude, D.; Bouget, C.; Cornillon, M.; Moreau, S.; Courtial, B.; Lopez-Vaamonde, C. A DNA barcode-based survey of wild urban bees in the Loire Valley, France. Sci Rep. 2021, 11, 4770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Köhler, F. From DNA taxonomy to barcoding—how a vague idea evolved into a biosystematic tool. Mitt. Mus. Naturkunde Berl., Zoolog. Reihe. 2007, 83, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Packer, L.; Gibbs, J.; Sheffield, C.; Hanner, R. DNA barcoding and the mediocrity of morphology. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2009, 9, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Koch, H. Combining morphology and DNA barcoding resolves the taxonomy of Western Malagasy Liotrigona Moure, 1961 (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini). Afr. Invertebr. 2010, 51, 413–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. May-Itzá, W.D.J.; Quezada-Euán, J.J.G.; Medina Medina, L.A.; Enríquez, E.; De la Rúa, P. Morphometric and genetic differentiation in isolated populations of the endangered Mesoamerican stingless bee Melipona yucatanica (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) suggest the existence of a two species complex. Conserv. Genet. 2010, 11, 2079–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. May-Itzá, W.D.J.; Quezada-Euán, J.J.G.; Ayala, R.; De la Rúa, P. Morphometric and genetic analyses reveal two taxonomic units within Melipona beecheii (Hymenoptera: Meliponidae), and support their conservation as two separate units. J. Insect Conerv. 2012, 16, 723–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Quezada-Euán, J.J.G.; Nates-Parra, G.; Maués, M.M.; Roubik, D.W.; Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L. The economic and cultural values of stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Meliponini) among ethnic groups of tropical America. Sociobiology 2018, 65, 534–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hurtado-Burillo, M.; Ruiz, C.; May-Itzá, W.; Quezada-Euán, J.J.; De la Rúa, P. Barcoding stingless bees: Genetic diversity of the economically important genus Scaptotrigona in Mesoamerica. Apidologie 2013, 44, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Makkar, G.S.; Chhuneja, P.K.; Singh, J. Stingless Bee, Tetragonula iridipennis Smith, 1854 (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini): Molecular and Morphological Characterization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 88, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ndungu, N.N.; Nkoba, K.; Ciosi, M.; Salifu, D.; Nyansera, D.; Masiga, D.; Raina, S.K. Identification of stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Kenya using morphometrics and DNA barcoding. J. Apic. Res. 2017, 56, 341–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Galaschi-Teixeira, J.; Falcon, T.; Ferreira-Caliman, M.J.; Witter, S.; Francoy, T.M. Morphological, chemical, and molecular analyses differentiate populations of the subterranean nesting stingless bee Mourella caerulea (Apidae: Meliponini). Apidologie 2018, 49, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Ndungu, N.N.; Nkoba, K.; Sole, C.L.; Pirk, C.W.W.; Abdullahi, A.Y.; Raina, S.K.; Masiga, D.K. Resolving taxonomic ambiguity and cryptic speciation of Hypotrigona species through morphometrics and DNA barcoding. J. Apic. Res. 2018, 57, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sayusti, T.; Raffiudin, R.; Kahono, S.; Nagir, T. Stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in South and West Sulawesi, Indonesia: Morphology, nest structure, and molecular characteristics. J. Apic. Res. 2020, 60, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Batalha-Filho, H.; Waldschmidt, A.M.; Campos, L.A.O.; Tavares, M.G.; Fernandes-Salomão, T.M. Phylogeography and historical demography of the neotropical stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata (Hymenoptera, Apidae): Incongruence between morphology and mitochondrial DNA. Apidologie 2010, 41, 534–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Ramírez, S.R.; Nieh, J.C.; Quental, T.B.; Roubik, D.W.; Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L.; Pierce, N.E. A molecular phylogeny of the stingless bee genus Melipona (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Mol. Phylogenetics Evol. 2010, 56, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. MINAM. Resolución Ministerial N° 039-2020-MINAM.-Aprueban la Zonificación Forestal del Departamento de San Martín MINAM. Available online: https://sinia.minam.gob.pe/normas/aprueban-zonificacion-forestal-departamento-san-martin (accessed on 13 June 2022).
  41. Britto, B. Actualización de las Ecorregiones Terrestres de Perú propuestas en el Libro Rojo de Plantas Endémicas del Perú. Gayana Bot. 2017, 74, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Villacorta, R.G. Diversity, composition, and structure of a highly endangered habitat: The seasonally dry forests of Tarapoto, Peru. Rev. peru. Biol. 2009, 16, 081–092. [Google Scholar]
  43. Linares-Palomino, R. Phytogeography and Floristics of Seasonally Dry Tropical Forests in Peru. In Neotropical Savannas and Seasonally Dry Forests: Plant Diversity, Biogeography and Conservation, 1st ed.; Pennington, R.T., Ratter, J.A., Lewis, G.P., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; pp. 257–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Prado, S.G.; Ngo, H.T.; Florez, J.A.; Collazo, J.A. Sampling bees in tropical forests and agroecosystems: A review. J. Insect Conserv. 2017, 21, 753–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Boontop, Y.; Malaipan, S.; Chareansom, K.; Wiwatwittaya, D. Diversity of Stingless Bees (Apidae: Meliponini) in Thong Pha Phum District, Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand. Kasetsart J. (Nat. Sci.) 2008, 42, 444–456. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ayala, R. Revisión de las abejas sin aguijón de México (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini). Folia Entomol. Mex. 1999, 106, 1–123. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ayala, R. Las abejas del género Plebeia Schwarz (Apidae: Meliponini) de Mexico. Entomología mexicana 2016, 3, 937–942. [Google Scholar]
  48. Camargo, J.M.F. Systematics and bionomics of the apoid obligate necrophages: The Trigona hypogea group (Hymenoptera: Apidae; Meliponinae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1991, 44, 13–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Camargo, J.M.F.; Silvia, R.M.P. Meliponini neotropicais: O gênero Ptilotrigona Moure (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Apinae). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2004, 48, 353–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Camargo, J.M.F.; Moure, J.S. Meliponini neotropicais: O gênero Geotrigona Moure, 1943 (Apinae, Apidae, Hymenoptera), com especial referência à filogenia e biogeografia. Arquivos de Zoologia 1996, 33, 95–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Camargo, J.M.F.; Pedro, S.R.M. Meliponini Lepeletier 1836. In Catalogue of Bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) in the Neotropical Region, 1st ed.; Moure, J.S., Urban, D., Melo, G.A.R., Eds.; Sociedade Brasileira de Entomologia: Curitiba, Brazil, 2013; pp. 272–578. [Google Scholar]
  52. De Oliveira, F.F.; Trautman Richers, B.T.; da Silva, J.R.; Farias, R.C.; de Lima Matos, T.A. Guia Ilustrado das Abelhas “Sem-Ferrão” das Reservas Amanã e Mamirauá, Amazonas, Brasil (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini), 1st ed.; Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá: Tefé, Brazil, 2013; p. 267. [Google Scholar]
  53. Gonzalez, V.H.; Engel, M.S. A new species of Geotrigona Moure from the Caribbean coast of Colombia (Hymenoptera, Apidae). ZooKeys 2012, 172, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Rasmussen, C.; Gonzalez, V.H. The neotropical stingless bee genus Nannotrigona Cockerell (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini): An illustrated key, notes on the types, and designation of lectotypes. Zootaxa 2017, 4299, 191–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Silveira, F.A.; Melo, G.A.; Almeida, E.A. Abelhas Brasileiras Sistemática e Identificação, 1st ed.; Depósito Legal na Biblioteca Nacional: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2002; p. 253. [Google Scholar]
  56. Nogueira, D.S.; Rasmussen, C.; Oliveira, M.L. New Species of Tetragona Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 from the “truncata group” and New Distribution Records of T. truncata Moure, 1971 (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 2021, 50, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Nogueira, D.S.; de Macedo Rocha, E.E.; Félix, J.A.; Pereira de Andrade, M.A.; Cortopassi-Laurino, M.; de Oliveira Alves, R.M.; Freitas, B.M.; Oliveira, M.L. Notes on the biology of Scaura (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini). J. Apic. Res. 2021, 60, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ribeiro, C.F. Estudo Taxonômico de Trigona JURINE, 1807 (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) na Amazônia Brasileira; Postgraduate program; National Institute of Amazonian Research: Manaus, Brazil, February 2021. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sambrook, J.; Fritsch, E.F.; Maniatis, T. Molecular Cloning. A Laboratory Manual Appendixes, 2nd ed.; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press: Long Island, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 6.4–6.20. [Google Scholar]
  60. Folmer, O.; Vrijenhoek, R.C.; Black, M.B. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial Cytochrome C oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol. Marine Biol. Biotechnol. 1994, 3, 294–299. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  61. Kimura, M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 1980, 16, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Ratnasingham, S.; Hebert, P.D.N. A DNA-Based Registry for All Animal Species: The Barcode Index Number (BIN) System. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Tamura, K.; Stecher, G.; Kumar, S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 11. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2021, 38, 3022–3027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Puillandre, N.; Brouillet, S.; Achaz, G. ASAP: Assemble Species by Automatic Partitioning. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2021, 21, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Zhang, J.; Kapli, P.; Pavlidis, P.; Stamatakis, A. A General Species Delimitation Method with Applications to Phylogenetic Placements. Bioinformatics 2013, 29, 2869–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Nogueira, D.S.; de Oliveira, F.F.; de Oliveira, M.L. The real taxonomic identity of Trigona latitarsis Friese, 1900, with notes on type specimens (Hymenoptera, Apidae). ZooKeys 2017, 713, 113–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Salvi, D.; Berrilli, E.; D’Alessandro, P.; Biondi, M. Sharpening the DNA barcoding tool through a posteriori taxonomic validation: The case of Longitarsus flea beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0233573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Grüter, C. Stingless Bees: Their Behaviour, Ecology and Evolution, 1st ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; p. 385. [Google Scholar]
  69. Brown, J.C.; Albrecht, C. The effect of tropical deforestation on stingless bees of the genus Melipona (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) in central Rondonia, Brazil. J. Biogeogr. 2001, 28, 623–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Brown, J.C.; Oliveira, M.L. The impact of agricultural colonization and deforestation on stingless bee (Apidae: Meliponini) composition and richness in Rondônia, Brazil. Apidologie 2014, 45, 172–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rull, V.; Carnaval, A.C. Neotropical Diversification: Patterns and Processes, 1st ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; p. 820. [Google Scholar]
  72. Bulle Bueno, F.G.; Kendall, L.; Araujo Alves, D.; Lequerica Tamara, M.; Heard, T.; Latty, T.; Gloag, R. Stingless bee floral visitation in the global tropics and subtropics. bioRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Condamine, F.L.; Silva-Brandão, K.L.; Kergoat, G.J.; Sperling, F.A.H. Biogeographic and diversification patterns of Neotropical Troidini butterflies (Papilionidae) support a museum model of diversity dynamics for Amazonia. BMC. Evol. Biol. 2012, 12, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Rasmussen, C.; Camargo, J.M.F. A molecular phylogeny and the evolution of nest architecture and behavior in Trigona s.s. (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini). Apidologie 2008, 39, 102–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rasmussen, C.; Cameron, S.A. Global stingless bee phylogeny supports ancient divergence, vicariance, and long distance dispersal. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2010, 99, 206–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hernandez, E.J.; Roubik, D.W.; Nates-Parra, G. Morphometric Analysis of Bees in the Trigona fulviventris Group (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 2007, 80, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Espinosa, C.I.; de la Cruz, M.; Luzuriaga, A.L.; Escudero, A. Bosques tropicales secos de la región Pacífico Ecuatorial: Diversidad, estructura, funcionamiento e implicaciones para la conservación. Ecosistemas 2012, 21, 167–179. Available online: https://www.revistaecosistemas.net/index.php/ecosistemas/article/view/35 (accessed on 13 June 2022).
  78. Quezada-Euán, J.J.G.; May-Itzá, W.D.J.; Rincón, M.; De la Rúa, P.; Paxton, R.J. Genetic and phenotypic differentiation in endemic Scaptotrigona hellwegeri (Apidae: Meliponini): Implications for the conservation of stingless bee populations in contrasting environments. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2012, 5, 433–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Carvalho-Zilse, G.A.; Nunes-Silva, C.G. Threats to the stingless bees in the Brazilian Amazon: How to deal with scarce biological data and an increasing rate of destruction. In Bees: Biology, Threats and Colonies, 1st ed.; Florio, R.M., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 147–168. [Google Scholar]
  80. Rojas, E.; Zutta, B.; Velazco, Y.; Montoya-Zumaeta, J.; & Salvà-Catarineu, M. Deforestation risk in the Peruvian Amazon basin. Environ. Conserv. 2021, 48, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rasmussen, C.; Castillo, P.S. Estudio preliminar de la Meliponicultura o apicultura silvestre en el Perú (Hymenoptera:Apidae, Meliponini). Rev. Per. Ent. 2003, 43, 159–164. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Location of the 5 sampling sites in northern Peruvian regions of San Martin (PY = Pabloyacu; JP = Juliampampa; POA = Pongo de Caynarachi; UT = Utcurarca) and Piura (MA = Mangamanguilla).
Figure 1. Location of the 5 sampling sites in northern Peruvian regions of San Martin (PY = Pabloyacu; JP = Juliampampa; POA = Pongo de Caynarachi; UT = Utcurarca) and Piura (MA = Mangamanguilla).
Diversity 14 00632 g001
Figure 2. Neighbour-joining COI tree (K2P-corrected distances) of Trigona. Only bootstrap values > 70 are shown. Original sequence data were merged with those retrieved in BOLD. Labels of Peruvian specimens collected in this study are highlighted in different colors, according to sampling sites.
Figure 2. Neighbour-joining COI tree (K2P-corrected distances) of Trigona. Only bootstrap values > 70 are shown. Original sequence data were merged with those retrieved in BOLD. Labels of Peruvian specimens collected in this study are highlighted in different colors, according to sampling sites.
Diversity 14 00632 g002
Figure 3. Specimens of Trigona spp. (a) T. cf. fulviventris Clade A (MA10), (b) T. cf. fulviventris Clade B (MA6), (c) T. guianae (UT11), (d) T. cf. guianae Clade A (POA9), (e) T. cf. guianae Clade B (PY12). Scale bar: 1 mm.
Figure 3. Specimens of Trigona spp. (a) T. cf. fulviventris Clade A (MA10), (b) T. cf. fulviventris Clade B (MA6), (c) T. guianae (UT11), (d) T. cf. guianae Clade A (POA9), (e) T. cf. guianae Clade B (PY12). Scale bar: 1 mm.
Diversity 14 00632 g003
Figure 4. Neighbour-joining COI tree (K2P corrected distances) of Plebeia. Only bootstrap values > 70 are shown. Original sequence data were merged with those retrieved in BOLD. Labels of Peruvian specimens collected in this study are highlighted in different colors, according to sampling sites.
Figure 4. Neighbour-joining COI tree (K2P corrected distances) of Plebeia. Only bootstrap values > 70 are shown. Original sequence data were merged with those retrieved in BOLD. Labels of Peruvian specimens collected in this study are highlighted in different colors, according to sampling sites.
Diversity 14 00632 g004
Figure 5. Specimens of Plebeia spp. (a) P. cf. franki Clade A (JP5), (b) P. cf. franki Clade B (POA32), (c) P. cf. frontalis Clade A (MA22-1), (d) P. cf. frontalis Clade B (JP31), (e) P. cf. frontalis Clade C (POA40), (f) P. cf. frontalis Clade D (UT58). Scale bar: 1 mm.
Figure 5. Specimens of Plebeia spp. (a) P. cf. franki Clade A (JP5), (b) P. cf. franki Clade B (POA32), (c) P. cf. frontalis Clade A (MA22-1), (d) P. cf. frontalis Clade B (JP31), (e) P. cf. frontalis Clade C (POA40), (f) P. cf. frontalis Clade D (UT58). Scale bar: 1 mm.
Diversity 14 00632 g005
Table 1. List of collected Peruvian stingless bees with their final identification obtained by integrating DNA barcoding, morphology, and inspection of COI phylogenetic trees. Final taxonomic IDs were established as follows: a Specimens ascribed to a species with BOLD ID % similarity > 97, confirmed by morphology and with sequences included in a monophyletic clade with all conspecifics (with node score > 70) received the “BOLD ID attribution”; b Specimens ascribed to a species with BOLD ID % similarity > 97, confirmed by morphology, but whose sequences were interspersed but grouped in various monophyletic clades (node score > 70) embedding conspecifics were named as “cf. + BOLD ID attribution” or “cf. + BOLD attribution + clade ID” when referring to clades grouping only Peruvian specimens; c Specimens unidentified at the species level in BOLD, but belonging to a clade (node score > 70) including at least one identified (a, b) specimen at the species level, and confirmed by morphology, were named as “cf. + BOLD ID attribution of the sister taxon”; d Specimens with BOLD and/or morphologically-based species attributions, not examined on reconstructed phylogenetic trees due to lack or strong underrepresentation of BOLD data, received a final (but uncertain) taxonomic ID provided by authors; * Unidentified specimens at species level in BOLD and by morphology, forming an independent clade in the phylogenetic tree were named as “genus + sp.”.
Table 1. List of collected Peruvian stingless bees with their final identification obtained by integrating DNA barcoding, morphology, and inspection of COI phylogenetic trees. Final taxonomic IDs were established as follows: a Specimens ascribed to a species with BOLD ID % similarity > 97, confirmed by morphology and with sequences included in a monophyletic clade with all conspecifics (with node score > 70) received the “BOLD ID attribution”; b Specimens ascribed to a species with BOLD ID % similarity > 97, confirmed by morphology, but whose sequences were interspersed but grouped in various monophyletic clades (node score > 70) embedding conspecifics were named as “cf. + BOLD ID attribution” or “cf. + BOLD attribution + clade ID” when referring to clades grouping only Peruvian specimens; c Specimens unidentified at the species level in BOLD, but belonging to a clade (node score > 70) including at least one identified (a, b) specimen at the species level, and confirmed by morphology, were named as “cf. + BOLD ID attribution of the sister taxon”; d Specimens with BOLD and/or morphologically-based species attributions, not examined on reconstructed phylogenetic trees due to lack or strong underrepresentation of BOLD data, received a final (but uncertain) taxonomic ID provided by authors; * Unidentified specimens at species level in BOLD and by morphology, forming an independent clade in the phylogenetic tree were named as “genus + sp.”.
SAMPLE CODEBOLD ID (% Similarity)BIN-RESL (AD/DNN %)MORPHO IDFINAL TAXONOMIC ID
Trigona (n = 61)
JPA0011T. amalthea (98.99)N/AT. amaltheaT. cf. amalthea b
JP26/JP63JP74T. amalthea (99.60)N/AT. amaltheaT. cf. amalthea b
JP3/JPA008-1JP34/JP36T. amazonensis (99.32)BOLD:ACB2162 (1.02/4.64)T. amazonensisT. amazonensisa
JP27T. ECU01 (99.15)N/AT. cf. hypogeaT. cf. hypogea c
JPA0010JP44T. ABA9157 (97.09)N/AT. cf. hypogeaT. cf. hypogea c
JP23T. hypogea (97.09)N/AT. cf. hypogeaT. cf. hypogea b
JP1T. muzoensis (98.39)N/AT. muzoensisT. muzoensisa
JPA007/JP49T. muzoensis (98.46)BOLD:ACX5344 (1/2.4)T. muzoensisT. muzoensisa
JPA009-1/JP10JP21T. ADA8339 (97.26)BOLD:ADA8339 (0/2.4)T. sp.T. sp. 1 *
JPA0014/JP54T. williana (97.95)BOLD:ADS7378 (N/A/4.65)T. willianaT. willianaa
JP55T. williana (98.12)BOLD:ADS7378 (N/A/4.65)T. willianaT. willianaa
PY29T. amalthea (99.39)N/AT. amaltheaT. cf. amalthea b
PY31T. amazonensis (98.63)BOLD:ACB2162 (1.02/4.64)T. amazonensisT. amazonensisa
PY6T. fuscipennis (96.63)N/AT. cf. fuscipennisT. cf. fuscipennis b
PY55T. fuscipennis (96.65)N/AT. cf. fuscipennisT. cf. fuscipennis b
PY58T. fuscipennis (97.11)BOLD:ACO9349 (0.16-1.44)T. cf. fuscipennisT. cf. fuscipennis b
PY12/PY21PY61T. fulviventris (99.15)N/AT. cf. guianaeT. cf. guianae b (Clade B)
PY41T. ECU01 (97.78)BOLD:ABV3541 (1.93/2.4)T. cf. hypogeaT. cf. hypogea c
PY4/PY54T. hypogea (97.09)BOLD:ABV3541 (1.93-2.94)T. cf. hypogeaT. cf. hypogea d
PY8T. ADA7925 (99.45)BOLD:ADA7925 (0/6.57)T. dallatorreanaT. sp. 2 *
POA24T. amalthea (99.15)N/AT. amaltheaT. cf. amalthea b
POA14T. fuscipennis (97.11)BOLD:ACO9349 (0.16-1.44)T. cf. fuscipennisT. cf. fuscipennis b
POA12/POA13T. fulviventris (98.80)N/AT. cf. guianaeT. cf. guianae b (Clade A)
POA9/POA16POA19/POA20POA29/POA35T. fulviventris (98.97)N/AT. cf. guianaeT. cf. guianae b (Clade A)
POA3T. muzoensis (96.42)-T. muzoensisT. muzoensisa
POA15T. muzoensis (96.43)N/AT. muzoensisT. muzoensisa
POA5/POA18T. muzoensis (98.46)BOLD:ACX5344 (1/2.4)T. muzoensisT. muzoensisa
POA21T. williana (98.63)BOLD:ADS7378 (N/A/4.65)T. willianaT. willianaa
MA6-1T. fulviventris (100)BOLD:ACP0056 (0.39/2.51)T. fulviventrisT. cf. fulviventris b (Clade B)
MA10-1/MA13-1T. fulviventris (99.80)BOLD:ACP0056 (0.39/2.51)T. fulviventrisT. cf. fulviventris b (Clade A)
MA4-1T. sp. (99.66)N/AT. cf. fuscipennisT. cf. fuscipennis c
MA29-1T. sp. (99.83)N/AT. cf. fuscipennisT. cf. fuscipennis c
UT60T. amalthea (99.49)N/AT. amaltheaT. cf. amalthea a
UT57T. amazonensis (98.97)BOLD:ACB2162 (1.02/4.64)T. amazonensisT. amazonensisa
UT18/UT59T. fuscipennis (97.11)BOLD:ACO9349 (0.16-1.44)T. cf. fuscipennisT. cf. fuscipennis b
UT11T. guianae (98.90)N/AT. cf. guianaeT. cf. guianae b (Clade A)
UT5/UT20-UT51T. muzoensis (98.46)BOLD:ACX5344 (1/2.4)T. muzoensisT. muzoensisa
Plebeia (n = 17)
JPA002/JP45P. COL07 (99.34)BOLD:AAL4715 (N/A/3.53)P. sp.P. cf. franki c (Clade A)
JP5P. ADA5630 (98.75)BOLD:ADA5630 (2.15/3.21)P. sp.P. cf. franki c (Clade B)
JP16P. ADA5630 (98.39)BOLD:ADA5630 (2.15/3.21)P. sp.P. cf. franki c (Clade B)
JP9/JP31P. frontalis (99.02)BOLD:AEB3793 (0/1.78)P. cf. frontalisP. cf. frontalis b (Clade B)
PY60P. frontalis (99.02)BOLD:AEB3793 (0/1.78)P. cf. frontalisP. cf. frontalis b (Clade B)
POA8P. ADA5630 (98.39)BOLD:ADA5630 (2.15/3.21)P. sp.P. cf. franki c (Clade B)
POA32/POA34P. ADA5630 (98.92)BOLD:ADA5630 (2.15/3.21)P. sp.P. cf. franki c (Clade B)
POA40P. frontalis (98.81)BOLD:AEB3776 (0.11/2.92)P. cf. frontalisP. cf. frontalis b (Clade C)
POA37P. frontalis (99.84)BOLD:AEE5216 (1.18/1.78)P. cf. frontalisP. cf. frontalis b (Clade B)
MA7P. frontalis (99.35)BOLD:AEE5216 (1.18/1.78)P. cf. frontalisP. cf. frontalis b (Clade A)
MA22-1P. frontalis (99.50)N/AP. cf. frontalisP. cf. frontalis b (Clade A)
MA8-1/MA26-1P. frontalis (99.51)BOLD:AEE5216 (1.18/1.78)P. cf. frontalisP. cf. frontalis b (Clade A)
UT58P. frontalis (99.84)BOLD:AEB6039 (N/A/1.7)P. cf. frontalisP. cf. frontalis b (Clade D)
Melipona (n = 5)
JPA0012M. cramptoni (99.33)N/AM. sp.M. cf. cramptoni d
JP48M. eburnea (100)N/AM. eburneaM. cf. eburnean b (Clade A)
POA42M. eburnea (100)N/AM. eburneaM. cf. eburnean b (Clade A)
PY23M. eburnea (99.84)N/AM. eburneaM. cf. eburnean b (Clade B)
PY56M. illota (99.83)N/AM. sp.M. cf. illota d
Tetragona (n = 11)
JP12/POA25T. clavipes (99.13)N/AT. clavipesT. cf. clavipes d
PY19T. goettei (100)BOLD:ADV2532 (0.75/4.81)T. goetteiT. goetteia
UT17T. goettei (97.37)BOLD:ADV2532 (0.75/4.81)T. goetteiT. goetteia
POA36T. goettei (99.19)BOLD:ADV2532 (0.75/4.81)T. goetteiT. goetteia
JP32/JP51T. goettei (99.51)BOLD:ADV2532 (0.75/4.81)T. goetteiT. goetteia
POA17T. mayarum (95.46)-T. sp.T. sp. d
POA11T. mayarum (95.47)-T. sp.T. sp. d
POA28T. mayarum (95.63)-T. sp.T. sp. d
POA33T. mayarum (95.67)-T. sp.T. sp. d
Partamona (n = 12)
JP4/JPA005P. epiphytophila (99.84)BOLD:ADT0715 (N/A/3.25)P. epiphytophilaP. cf. epiphytophila d
JPA006P. ADA6554 (98.22)BOLD:ADA6554 (0/2.4)P. sp.P. sp. d
JPA001/JPA003JP18/JP35JP40/JP52JP56/JP57JP60P. testacea (99.52)BOLD:AEH5789 (N/A/3.53)P. testaceaP. Testaceaa
Trigonisca (n = 3)
JP29P. AAO0579 (97.42)BOLD:AAO0579 (0.77/3.69)T. sp.T. sp. 1d
MA9-1T. atomaria (99.64)N/AT. sp.T. cf. atomaria d
MA2T. sp.3 (99.13)BOLD:ACO9548 (0.15/1.12)T. sp.T. sp. 2 d
Scaptotrigona (n = 4)
JPA0015-1JPA0016-1O. ADA6461 (98.85)N/AS. sp.S. sp.1d
POA44O. ADA6461 (98.85)N/AS. sp.S. sp.1d
MA51O. ADA6462 (98.35)BOLD:ADA6462 (0.19/1.28)S. sp.S. sp.2d
Scaura (n = 3)
JPA004S. latitarsis (99.51)N/AS. cf. latitarsisS. cf. latitarsis d
POA31S. latitarsis (99.51)-S. cf. latitarsisS. cf. latitarsis d
JP8-1S. tenuis (98.53)BOLD:ACQ7915 (1.46/2.99)S. tenuisS. tenuisa
Geotrigona (n = 4)
JP67G. fulvohirta (97.39)BOLD:AAL2566 (N/A/4.33)G. fulvohirtaG. cf. fulvohirta d
JP14G. fulvohirta (97.40)BOLD:AAL2566 (N/A/4.33)G. fulvohirtaG. sp. d
PY24-1G. fulvohirta (97.74)BOLD:AAL2566 (N/A/4.33)G. fulvohirtaG. sp. d
MA50G. fulvohirta (98.43)BOLD:AAL2566 (N/A/4.33)G. fulvohirtaG. sp.d
Nannotrigona (n = 3)
MA1/MA100-1N. sp.1 (99.84)N/AN. mellariaN. sp. d
MA28-1G. sp.1 (98.78)BOLD:ACO9583 (0/2.24)N. mellariaN. sp. d
Ptilotrigona (n = 5)
JP28/JP53/POA1POA30/POA41P. pereneae (99.17)N/AP. sp.P. cf. pereneae d
Tetragonisca (n = 5)
POA39T. angustula (99.50)N/AT. angustulaT. angustulaa
UT4-1/UT15-1T. angustula (99.50)N/AT. angustulaT. angustulaa
JP38T. angustula (99.67)N/AT. angustulaT. angustulaa
POA43T. angustula (99.67)N/AT. angustulaT. angustulaa
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marconi, M.; Modesti, A.; Alvarez, L.P.; Ogoña, P.V.; Mendoza, A.C.; Vecco-Giove, C.D.; Luna, J.O.; Di Giulio, A.; Mancini, E. DNA Barcoding of Stingless Bees (Hymenoptera: Meliponini) in Northern Peruvian Forests: A Plea for Integrative Taxonomy. Diversity 2022, 14, 632. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14080632

AMA Style

Marconi M, Modesti A, Alvarez LP, Ogoña PV, Mendoza AC, Vecco-Giove CD, Luna JO, Di Giulio A, Mancini E. DNA Barcoding of Stingless Bees (Hymenoptera: Meliponini) in Northern Peruvian Forests: A Plea for Integrative Taxonomy. Diversity. 2022; 14(8):632. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14080632

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marconi, Marilena, Alessandro Modesti, Leydi Paz Alvarez, Paolo Villegas Ogoña, Agustín Cerna Mendoza, Carlos Daniel Vecco-Giove, Javier Ormeño Luna, Andrea Di Giulio, and Emiliano Mancini. 2022. "DNA Barcoding of Stingless Bees (Hymenoptera: Meliponini) in Northern Peruvian Forests: A Plea for Integrative Taxonomy" Diversity 14, no. 8: 632. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14080632

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop