Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Ecology and Evolution logoLink to Ecology and Evolution
. 2024 Feb 5;14(2):e10838. doi: 10.1002/ece3.10838

An outsider on the Antarctic Peninsula: A new record of the non‐native moth Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Hugo A Benitez 1,2,3,✉, Carla Salinas 4, Jordan Hernández 1,2,5, Tamara Contador Mejías 1,2,6, Sanghee Kim 7, Claudia S Maturana 1,2, Lorena Rebolledo 4, Laura M Pérez 8, Paulo E A S Câmara 9, Vinícius Alves Ferreira 10, Isabel Lobos 1,3, Alejandro Piñeiro 1,3, Peter Convey 1,2,11,12
PMCID: PMC10844584  PMID: 38322004

Abstract

We report the first record of the microlepidopteran Plodia interpunctella beyond the South Shetland Islands at the Chilean Yelcho scientific station (64°52′33.1428″ S; 63°35′1.9572″ W), Doumer Island, close to the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula. It is notable that P. interpunctella, a globally distributed stored product pest species, exhibits a remarkable capacity for prolonged viability within food storage facilities. The dual challenges of food transportation and storage in the context of Antarctica's challenging operational conditions may have facilitated P. interpunctella's initial arrival to the Antarctic region. Non‐perishable food items, such as grains, flour and rice, provide practical options for the bulk food transportation and storage required in the long‐term operation of Antarctic research stations. The presence of P. interpunctella in Antarctica, even if restricted to synanthropic environments within buildings, is a clear threat to Antarctic biodiversity, not only through being an invasive species itself but also as a potential vector for other non‐native species (bacteria, acari, between others.), which could carry diseases to the native species.

Keywords: Antarctica, Indian meal moth, non‐native species, research stations, Yelcho Station

This text reports the discovery of the microlepidopteran Plodia interpunctella at the Chilean Yelcho scientific station on Doumer Island, near the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula. Plodia interpunctella is a global pest known for surviving in stored food for extended periods. The text suggests that the insect may have initially arrived in Antarctica due to the challenges of food transportation and storage in the harsh Antarctic conditions. Non‐perishable food items like grains and flour are commonly transported to Antarctic research stations, potentially aiding the insect's introduction. The presence of P. interpunctella in Antarctica, even within buildings, poses a threat to Antarctic biodiversity as an invasive species and a potential vector for other non‐native species.

graphic file with name ECE3-14-e10838-g004.jpg

1. INTRODUCTION

Increasing globalization and economic development (Menchaca Dávila & Alvarado Michi, 2011) have eroded geographical barriers, with significant and even transformative impacts on natural ecosystems (Espinosa, 2018). Antarctica is one of the few pristine environments remaining on the planet, due to its physical isolation and extreme climatic conditions (low temperatures, lack freshwater, strong winds, short growing season and limited ice‐free areas), which act as barriers to the natural colonization and establishment of organisms (Convey et al., 2014; Duffy et al., 2017; Hughes & Convey, 2010). The terrestrial biodiversity of the Antarctic continent is characterized by a high degree of endemism (Chown et al., 2015; Chown & Convey, 2007; Convey et al., 2020; Pugh & Convey, 2008) and low overall species diversity (Convey & Stevens, 2007). Mosses and lichens dominate ice‐free terrestrial areas, while the invertebrate fauna is limited to small arthropods and microinvertebrates (Convey & Biersma, 2024; Hughes & Pertierra, 2016). There are only two species of native insects, both chironomid midges, Antarctica's only flying insect, Parochlus steinenii, and the wingless Belgica antarctica, the latter endemic to the Antarctic Peninsula and South Shetland Islands (Chown & Convey, 2016; Contador et al., 2020).

In recent decades, human activity on the continent has increased (Contador et al., 2023; Tejedo et al., 2022; Tin et al., 2009), with scientific activities and tourism growing rapidly other than during the short hiatus imposed by the global COVID‐19 pandemic (Hughes & Convey, 2020). At the same time, the Antarctic Peninsula region has faced particularly rapid regional climate change (Turner et al., 2009), with future scenarios currently being relatively unconstrained (Siegert et al., 2019). Acting in synergy, these factors have facilitated the anthropogenically assisted introduction of non‐native terrestrial species into the area of Antarctic Treaty governance (Hughes et al., 2015; Pertierra et al., 2016). Biological invasions are arguably the greatest contemporary threat to Antarctic ecosystems and biodiversity (Convey & Peck, 2019), in addition to being recognized as one of the five major causes of biodiversity loss globally, acting in multiple and generally unknown ways and affecting multiple levels of ecosystem organization (Tellería, 2013). The presence of species such as the dipteran Trichocera maculipennis (Remedios‐De León et al., 2021; Volonterio et al., 2013), or the recent first record of the Indian meal moth Plodia interpunctella within the Antarctic Treaty Area in 2021, at the Brazilian Commandante Ferraz research station in Admiralty Bay on King George Island (South Shetland Islands; (Câmara et al., 2022)) and a previous sighting at the Korean King Sejong station in 2017 (pers. obs. Chanh‐Young Choi and Yu‐Min Kim), are among the recent examples of anthropogenic species introductions into Antarctica. Plodia interpunctella was previously similarly reported as an introduction to the King Edward Point research station on the milder sub‐Antarctic island of South Georgia in 2000 (Convey, 2005).

The Instituto Antártico Chileno (INACH) manages three stations supporting research in Antarctica: Professor Julio Escudero Station (King George Island, 62°12′57″ S; 58°57′35″ W), Dr. Guillermo Mann Station (Livingston Island, 62°27′0″ S; 60°47′0″ W) and Yelcho Station. The latter is located at South Bay, Doumer Island (64°52′55″ S; 63°35′03″ W). This article reports the presence of the microlepidopteran, Plodia interpunctella (Pyralidae), at Yelcho Station, including confirmation of identity through DNA barcoding, providing the first record of the species beyond the South Shetland Islands in the Antarctic Peninsula region (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Yelcho Station on the shore of South Bay, Doumer Island, west of the Antarctic Peninsula coast.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

In February 2022, two specimens of Plodia interpunctella were observed flying on different days (February 22 and 24, 2023) and collected on the first and second floors of Yelcho Station (Figure 2). The collected specimens were stored in 95% ethanol and frozen for genetic analyses.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Map showing the three station locations at which Plodia interpunctella has been reported in Antarctica.

Moth legs were removed to extract DNA using the salting‐out method (Aljanabi & Martinez, 1997). The mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (cox1) gene was amplified using universal primers LCO1490 and HCO2109 in a total of 30 μL of mix containing PCR buffer 1× (200 mM Tris–HCL pH 8.4, 500 mM KCl), MgCl2 2 mM, dNTPs 0.16 mM, Forward and Reverse primers 0.1 μM, Taq DNA Polymerase (Invitrogen™) 0.03 U/μL and DNA 1 ng/μL (Folmer et al., 1994).

Thermal cycling parameters for PCR conditions were: initial denaturation step at 94°C for 3 min, followed by 35 cycles at 95°C for 1 min, 50°C for 45 s (annealing temperature), and 72°C for 30 s, and a final extension of 10 min at 72°C. PCR products were purified and bidirectionally sequenced by Macrogen, Inc. using an automated sequencer ABI3730x1. Sequences were edited and aligned using the ClustalW option of BioEdit v7.0.5 (Hall, 1999). Sequences were inspected, assembled and edited using Geneious software 10.2.2 (Kearse et al., 2012). Finally, genealogical relationships were estimated by constructing a median‐joining haplotype network (Bandelt et al., 1999) using PopArt (http://popart.otago.ac.nz).

3. RESULTS

The two specimens observed were collected in the station's working area on the second floor and in the station dining room adjacent to the kitchen on the first floor.

Our molecular analyses included a total of 19 sequences. Three were obtained in the present study, from the specimens collected at Yelcho Station (n = 2) and previously from Ferraz Station (n = 1, collection described in (Câmara et al., 2022)), combined with 16 sequences obtained from GenBank originating from the South Korean Local populations (n = 8) and the United States Local populations (n = 8; for accession numbers see Table A1). The final alignment consisted of 593 bp and did not include insertion/deletion or stop codons. Sequences obtained from the specimens from Yelcho Station had a 100% match to the P. interpunctella published genome (Wu et al., 2020). Additionally, the cox1 median‐joining network identified one shared haplotype among the three Antarctic research stations from which the species has now been recorded (Figure 3), possibly suggesting a common population history among these locations across the maritime Antarctic region.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Haplotype network for Plodia interpunctella, including mtDNA cox1 sequences from two Antarctic research stations, Commandante Ferraz, Brazil, King George Island (n = 1), and Yelcho, Chile, Doumer Island, western Antarctic Peninsula (n = 2) and sequences from the United States of America (n = 8) and South Korea (n = 8). Circle sizes are proportional to the frequency of the haplotype in the entire sample, as shown in the key on the right. The color key indicates the site of collection.

4. DISCUSSION

The Indian meal moth holds significant economic importance as a pest of stored products, and is now widely distributed across all continents except Antarctica (Mohandass et al., 2007; Rees, 2007). It is often found in synanthropic habitats involved in food storage and is recognized as a pest of a diverse range of products, including grains, flour, nuts, cereals and processed foods (Mohandass et al., 2007). While there is no evidence of any capability of P. interpunctella to migrate independently or disperse over long continental distances, instances have been documented where the species has been discovered in infested products during commercial ocean freight transport (Schulten & Roorda, 1984).

Plodia interpunctella is a pest that can survive for very long periods in stored food (Choi et al., 2017). The challenge presented by its viability in both food transfer and storage adds to the logistical difficulties inherent in supplying and storing food for Antarctic research stations. Non‐perishable foods, such as grains, flour or rice, are particularly suitable for provisioning stations in Antarctica and are imported in large quantities by operators. Nevertheless, and despite the widespread synanthropic presence of the species globally, it is only in the last 2 years that specimens have been formally recorded in Antarctic research stations (Câmara et al., 2022; current study).

While P. interpunctella has only been recorded in synanthropic locations within research stations in Antarctica, and likely has neither the physiological capability to survive (Câmara et al., 2022) or suitable food source in the natural Antarctic environment, this third record of its presence again signals a very clear warning of the risks of inadvertent human‐assisted transfer of non‐native organisms to Antarctica if strict biosecurity controls are not in place and applied. A proportion of such transfers are likely to be suitably adapted to survive and establish in the Antarctic environment, as already clearly demonstrated by the northern boreal trichocerid fly, Trichocera maculipennis, on King George Island (Remedios‐De León et al., 2021) and the chironomid, Eretmoptera murphyi, on Signy Island (Bartlett et al., 2020). Such species may bring functions that are poorly or not currently represented in Antarctic ecosystems, potentially acting as ecosystem engineers and fundamentally changing ecosystem processes (Bartlett et al., 2023). Introductions such as that of P. interpunctella may also generate further threats, as they may be associated with commensal, symbiotic or parasitic species. For instance, it is known that P. interpunctella is a host for the parasitoid species, Habrobracon hebetor (Hymenoptera; Hasan et al., 2022). While such a parasitoid may seem unlikely to find a suitable host in the native Antarctic terrestrial invertebrate fauna, there is no knowledge of the susceptibility of the two native chironomid midges to any parasites, with none present in Antarctica. The introduction of a parasite that could transfer to the endemic Belgica antarctica could be disastrous for this species, while any parasitoid introductions to the milder sub‐Antarctic islands would have access to a considerably wider range of native and often endemic invertebrates. Studies of the microbiome of the introduced E. murphyi on Signy Island have also reported association with specific fungi (Bridge & Denton, 2007), flagging the possibility of inadvertent introduction and changes to the native microbial communities (Bridge & Hughes, 2010; Cowan et al., 2011). Therefore, the presence of P. interpunctella in Antarctica suggests a clear threat, not only as an invasive species itself but also as a vector for other non‐native species, particularly in the face on global climate change.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Hugo A. Benitez: Conceptualization (equal); formal analysis (equal); funding acquisition (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); project administration (equal); resources (equal); software (equal); validation (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Carla Salinas: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); funding acquisition (equal); project administration (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Jordan Hernández: Conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); resources (equal); visualization (equal); writing – original draft (equal). Tamara Contador Mejías: Conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); resources (equal); software (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Sanghee Kim: Conceptualization (lead); data curation (supporting); investigation (supporting); methodology (supporting). Claudia S. Maturana: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); software (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Lorena Rebolledo: Conceptualization (equal); funding acquisition (equal); investigation (equal); project administration (equal); resources (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Laura M. Pérez: Conceptualization (equal); resources (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Paulo E. A. S. Câmara: Data curation (equal); investigation (equal); software (equal); visualization (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Vinícius Alves Ferreira: Data curation (equal); methodology (equal); validation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Alejandro Piñeiro: Conceptualization (equal); resources (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal). Isabel Lobos: Conceptualization (equal); resources (equal); validation (equal); visualization (equal). Peter Convey: Conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); resources (equal); validation (equal); writing – original draft (equal); writing – review and editing (equal).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

HB, CS, SK were funded by Grant FOVI220036, and the research was also co‐funded by ANID – Millennium Science Initiative Program – ICN2021_002. Prof. Peter Convey is supported by NERC core funding to the British Antarctic Survey's “Biodiversity, Evolution and Adaptation” Team. LMP acknowledges partial financial support from ANID through Convocatoria Nacional Subvención a Instalación en la Academia Convocatoria Año 2021, Grant SA77210040.The authors thanks to INACH personnel to collaborate providing the samples of Plodia from the scientific stations.

APPENDIX A.

TABLE A1.

List of sample numbers, collections sites and GenBank accession numbers of cox1 sequences used in this study.

Name N Collection site Cox1 accession number
Plodia interpunctella, CL 2 Yelcho Research Station, Doumer Island, West Antarctic Peninsula

OR923475

OR923476

Plodia interpunctella, BR 1 Ferraz Research Station, King George Island OR923474
Plodia interpunctella, USA 8 n/a (International Barcoding Program)

GU800020, GU800289

GU800968, GU801264, GU801265, GU801375

GU801343

Plodia interpunctella, SK 8 Seul, South Korea

KC407753

KC407751

KC407747

KC407752

KC407750

KC407748

KC407746

JQ350723

Open in a new tab

Note: N, sample size.

Benitez, H. A. , Salinas, C. , Hernández, J. , Contador Mejías, T. , Kim, S. , Maturana, C. S. , Rebolledo, L. , Pérez, L. M. , Câmara, P. E. A. S. , Alves Ferreira, V. , Lobos, I. , Piñeiro, A. , & Convey, P. (2024). An outsider on the Antarctic Peninsula: A new record of the non‐native moth Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Ecology and Evolution, 14, e10838. 10.1002/ece3.10838

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All the genetic data is available at GenBank using the accession number provided in Table A1.

REFERENCES

  1. Aljanabi, S. M. , & Martinez, I. (1997). Universal and rapid salt‐extraction of high quality genomic DNA for PCR‐based techniques. Nucleic Acids Research, 25(22), 4692–4693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandelt, H.‐J. , Forster, P. , & Röhl, A. (1999). Median‐joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 16(1), 37–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartlett, J. C. , Convey, P. , Newsham, K. K. , & Hayward, S. (2023). Ecological consequences of a single introduced species to the Antarctic: Terrestrial impacts of the invasive midge Eretmoptera murphyi on Signy Island. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 180, 108965. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartlett, J. C. , Convey, P. , Pertierra, L. R. , & Hayward, S. A. (2020). An insect invasion of Antarctica: The past, present and future distribution of Eretmoptera murphyi (Diptera, Chironomidae) on Signy Island. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 13(1), 77–90. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bridge, P. , & Denton, G. (2007). Isolation of diverse viable fungi from the larvae of the introduced chironomid Eretmoptera murphyi on Signy Island. Polar Biology, 30, 935–937. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bridge, P. , & Hughes, K. (2010). Conservation issues for Antarctic fungi. Mycologia Balcanica, 7(1), 73–76. [Google Scholar]
  7. Câmara, P. E. , Convey, P. , Ferreira, V. A. , Togni, P. H. B. , & Pujol‐Luz, J. R. (2022). First record of the Indian meal moth Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) at a research station in Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 34(5), 361–364. [Google Scholar]
  8. Choi, K. S. , Wijesinghe, R. E. , Lee, C. , Lee, S. Y. , Jung, H. Y. , Jeon, M. , & Kim, J. (2017). In vivo observation of metamorphosis of Plodia interpunctella Hübner using three‐dimensional optical coherence tomography. Entomological Research, 47(4), 256–262. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chown, S. L. , Clarke, A. , Fraser, C. I. , Cary, S. C. , Moon, K. L. , & McGeoch, M. A. (2015). The changing form of Antarctic biodiversity. Nature, 522(7557), 431–438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chown, S. L. , & Convey, P. (2007). Spatial and temporal variability across life's hierarchies in the terrestrial Antarctic. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 362(1488), 2307–2331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chown, S. L. , & Convey, P. (2016). Antarctic entomology. Annual Review of Entomology, 61, 119–137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Contador, T. , Gañan, M. , Bizama, G. , Fuentes‐Jaque, G. , Morales, L. , Rendoll, J. , Simoes, F. , Kennedy, J. , Rozzi, R. , & Convey, P. (2020). Assessing distribution shifts and ecophysiological characteristics of the only Antarctic winged midge under climate change scenarios. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 9087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Contador, T. , Gañan, M. , Rendoll‐Cárcamo, J. , Maturana, C. S. , Benítez, H. A. , Kennedy, J. , Rozzi, R. , & Convey, P. (2023). A polar insect's tale: Observations on the life cycle of Parochlus steinenii, the only winged midge native to Antarctica. Ecology, 104(3), e3964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Convey, P. (2005). Recent lepidopteran records from sub‐Antarctic South Georgia. Polar Biology, 28, 108–110. [Google Scholar]
  15. Convey, P. , & Biersma, E. M. (2024). Antarctic Ecosystems. In Scheiner S. M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (3rd ed., pp. 133–148). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Convey, P. , Biersma, E. M. , Casanova‐Katny, A. , & Maturana, C. S. (2020). Chapter 10 ‐ Refuges of Antarctic diversity. In Oliva M. & Ruiz‐Fernández J. (Eds.), Past Antarctica (pp. 181– 200). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Convey, P. , Chown, S. L. , Clarke, A. , Barnes, D. K. , Bokhorst, S. , Cummings, V. , Ducklow, H. W. , Frati, F. , Green, T. G. A. , Gordon, S. , Griffiths, H. J. , Howard‐Williams, C. , Huiskes, A. H. L. , Laybourn‐Parry, J. , Lyons, W. B. , McMinn, A. , Morley, S. A. , Peck, L. S. , Quesada, A. , & Wall, D. H. (2014). The spatial structure of Antarctic biodiversity. Ecological Monographs, 84(2), 203–244. [Google Scholar]
  18. Convey, P. , & Peck, L. S. (2019). Antarctic environmental change and biological responses. Science Advances, 5(11), eaaz0888. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Convey, P. , & Stevens, M. I. (2007). Antarctic biodiversity. Science, 317(5846), 1877–1878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cowan, D. A. , Chown, S. L. , Convey, P. , Tuffin, M. , Hughes, K. , Pointing, S. , & Vincent, W. F. (2011). Non‐indigenous microorganisms in the Antarctic: Assessing the risks. Trends in Microbiology, 19(11), 540–548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Duffy, G. A. , Coetzee, B. W. T. , Latombe, G. , Akerman, A. H. , McGeoch, M. A. , & Chown, S. L. (2017). Barriers to globally invasive species are weakening across the Antarctic. Diversity and Distributions, 23(9), 982–996. 10.1111/ddi.12593 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Espinosa, M. B. (2018). Impacto Antropogénico sobre el Medioambiente . Revista de Investigaciones Científicas de la Universidad de Morón, 51‐55. 10.34073/37 [DOI]
  23. Folmer, O. , Black, M. , Hoeh, W. , Lutz, R. , & Vrijenhoek, R. (1994). DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology, 3(5), 294–299. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hall, T. A. (1999). BioEdit: A user‐friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for windows 95/98/NT . Paper presented at the Nucleic acids symposium series.
  25. Hasan, M. M. , Hasan, M. M. , Rahman, A. S. , Athanassiou, C. G. , Tussey, D. A. , & Hahn, D. A. (2022). Induced dormancy in Indian meal moth Plodia interpunctella (Hübner) and its impact on the quality improvement for mass rearing in parasitoid Habrobracon hebetor (Say). Bulletin of Entomological Research, 112(6), 766–776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hughes, K. A. , & Convey, P. (2010). The protection of Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems from inter‐ and intra‐continental transfer of non‐indigenous species by human activities: A review of current systems and practices. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 96–112. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.09.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hughes, K. A. , & Convey, P. (2020). Implications of the COVID‐19 pandemic for Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 32(6), 426–439. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hughes, K. A. , & Pertierra, L. R. (2016). Evaluation of non‐native species policy development and implementation within the Antarctic treaty area. Biological Conservation, 200, 149–159. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hughes, K. A. , Pertierra, L. R. , Molina‐Montenegro, M. A. , & Convey, P. (2015). Biological invasions in terrestrial Antarctica: What is the current status and can we respond? Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(5), 1031–1055. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kearse, M. , Moir, R. , Wilson, A. , Stones‐Havas, S. , Cheung, M. , Sturrock, S. , Buxton, S. , Cooper, A. , Markowitz, S. , Duran, C. , Thierer, T. , Ashton, B. , Meintjes, P. , & Drummond, A. (2012). Geneious basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics, 28(12), 1647–1649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Menchaca Dávila, M. , & Alvarado Michi, E. L. (2011). Efectos antropogénicos provocados por los usuarios del agua en la microcuenca del Río Pixquiac. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, 2(SPE1), 85–96. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mohandass, S. , Arthur, F. H. , Zhu, K. Y. , & Throne, J. E. (2007). Biology and management of Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in stored products. Journal of Stored Products Research, 43(3), 302–311. 10.1016/j.jspr.2006.08.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pertierra, L. R. , Baker, M. , Howard, C. , Vega, G. C. , Olalla‐Tarraga, M. A. , & Scott, J. (2016). Assessing the invasive risk of two non‐native Agrostis species on sub‐Antarctic Macquarie Island. Polar Biology, 39, 2361–2371. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pugh, P. J. , & Convey, P. (2008). Surviving out in the cold: Antarctic endemic invertebrates and their refugia. Journal of Biogeography, 35(12), 2176–2186. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rees, D. (2007). Insects of stored grain: A pocket reference. CSIRO Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  36. Remedios‐De León, M. , Hughes, K. A. , Morelli, E. , & Convey, P. (2021). International response under the Antarctic treaty system to the establishment of a non‐native Fly in Antarctica. Environmental Management, 67(6), 1043–1059. 10.1007/s00267-021-01464-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Schulten, G. , & Roorda, F. (1984). Storage insects in imported products mainly of tropical origin. Entomologische berichten, 44, 65–69. [Google Scholar]
  38. Siegert, M. , Atkinson, A. , Banwell, A. , Brandon, M. , Convey, P. , Davies, B. , Downie, R. , Edwards, T. , Hubbard, B. , Marshall, G. , Rogelj, J. , Rumble, J. , Stroeve, J. , & Vaughan, D. (2019). The Antarctic peninsula under a 1.5 C global warming scenario. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 7, 102. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tejedo, P. , Benayas, J. , Cajiao, D. , Leung, Y.‐F. , De Filippo, D. , & Liggett, D. (2022). What are the real environmental impacts of Antarctic tourism? Unveiling their importance through a comprehensive meta‐analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 308, 114634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Tellería, J. L. (2013). Pérdida de biodiversidad. Causas y consecuencias de la desaparición de las especies. Memorias de la Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural, 10, 13–25. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tin, T. , Fleming, Z. L. , Hughes, K. A. , Ainley, D. , Convey, P. , Moreno, C. , Pfeiffer, S. , Scott, J. , & Snape, I. (2009). Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic environment. Antarctic Science, 21(1), 3–33. [Google Scholar]
  42. Turner, J. M. , Bindschadler, R. , Convey, P. , di Prisco, G. , Fahrbach, E. , Gutt, J. , Hodgson, D. , Mayewski, P. , Summerhayes, C. (2009). Antarctic climate change and the environment (p. 526). Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. [Google Scholar]
  43. Volonterio, O. , de León, R. P. , Convey, P. , & Krzemińska, E. (2013). First record of Trichoceridae (Diptera) in the maritime Antarctic. Polar Biology, 36(8), 1125–1131. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wu, Y.‐P. , Su, T.‐J. , & He, B. (2020). Complete mitochondrial genome of Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B Resources, 5(1), 583–585. 10.1080/23802359.2019.1710590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All the genetic data is available at GenBank using the accession number provided in Table A1.

Articles from Ecology and Evolution are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES