Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4
![Evolutionary relationship of Meloidogyne indica using ITS rRNA sequence. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on Kimura 2-parameter model. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 1,000 replicates is taken to represent the evolutionary history of the analyzed taxa. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 30% bootstrap replicates are collapsed. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1,000 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained automatically by applying neighbour-joining and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the maximum composite likelihood approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value (–1869.0466). A discrete Gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites (five categories [+G, parameter = 1.0929]). The analysis involved 29 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 170 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6.](https://sciendo-parsed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/64722076215d2f6c89dbcc73/j_jofnem-2018-015_fig_004.jpg?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIA6AP2G7AKEPVW57QF%2F20260305%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20260305T153704Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEAcaDGV1LWNlbnRyYWwtMSJGMEQCIC6qu%2FAMWibSB6JRsB1VcR%2F7h2TWDFvdT7P8nsb0kWfjAiBWEZ2XQbxHjmJoDbu2M4tZqHBNCYmWoQ1NwWMsrtxtPSrEBQjQ%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAIaDDk2MzEzNDI4OTk0MCIMy9pjNv%2FkhYDz3cCRKpgFfujuV6SAbPimjwghArKCbBFE1m39qOWYeIXRtJSkUALAaif8MKBKfN1vwPIUBIRTwwBbPdiWO5i6fmlT%2BAqDdjbfIXZpOjqT5Rr9I%2FsZR4AtNIMEAyaFH1nBIwaqqq%2BAhmX7n0jjbC8sG%2FK%2B1AffGrJWoe1jMep678aYnrjvCn004cmNX4o89YiBvL7eRYck4gs7koXrr%2BccIJ1GbsM977UEy%2FDkLJLEfIN8pndIew%2BkoIv%2BkV0r2mviNEz13jGceANgnXd%2Bwkui3oYMouRvTWiMF14hU09eAQLI7B4wuI9ZUDY%2BSzs5Dnl6QzkJPg8R6qwvHG93pwiiNwGuHLWw0oDeCvSeYt7EIFSlmLGiZfV94YbLZj5ojlFETWYahLDo6jTbsI4Oxp6imoyELdgvfiURBDWOLtTpNpvef4PFF0bYjBDtZJaApvLFlKdpB8qmJ%2BTOnRgJ4FthTA%2FT0sBGP7wvjAhpLYWfL5SYtI%2FPFxGKD6ZVN4F8S20qD5yjEt5jXafA8gIpWYwzm20p6Uaa4I%2BFEZp21QoLt15eUJVDz7zXeRwophZ9Z7CWZk6BottPHocDvjMMozdfBc1xOTZ0UoOrMSOiN1D0clPHDmAYrbeKAtpZWH0re%2BYOvrAGpnA4fBnyKYAIE2udU%2FUBIEgu%2F4ld8RJDpr0D%2FATXcNYLw%2FYWuPdsGUPMHFjNFvEoNUvoUVtMMvmZakwyt5%2BIZzFdBVvKHE10C%2FttwCLXEVwGF1OfpyPKk91gDeDHHUAzBAi4zjMErMrSfI8f%2BtOWK63bO1N1bmUNJzB8RAb71sx4lYR06N1lKi9PepJuQARIYE1hIkFGjJQdyGjPjdwabfRk2l9fOGjH0VSG2vGz7NgJnpoIYwxZEJuuyDCDv6bNBjqyARtd3HpPyPfgCIfw4yzU73x2Ck0EDCUp7qHk30jv28lB0xaSV36qjL1ntYvZh3PkXF1FsPZ8L8u43sc48QQVwCbYFeW5zW%2BIU%2FuwIrjtVqAPfOzxRrun15PY6VT6fscWGrLKRnPB5bTi423RhzAjmCgr88Ti%2FaXbm%2FF9%2Bh%2BK1X6CBY6ttYcJvyj76llf4KIIUHDetIITsTTfGidjuIM3%2FG4r74rdEYAts7Qjgb3IpONR4Uk%3D&X-Amz-Signature=03558ed406110b08c485e90154da40f2d3961285eea25ea3e2af5e53c90fea38&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&x-amz-checksum-mode=ENABLED&x-id=GetObject)
Fig. 5
![Evolutionary relationship of Meloidogyne indica using D2D3 expansion segment of 28S rRNA sequence. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on General Time Reversible model. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 1,000 replicates is taken to represent the evolutionary history of the analyzed taxa. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 30% bootstrap replicates are collapsed. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1,000 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained automatically by applying neighbour-joining and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the Maximum Composite Likelihood approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value (−4112.4125). A discrete Gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites (five categories [+G, parameter = 0.4693]). The analysis involved 34 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 525 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6.](https://sciendo-parsed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/64722076215d2f6c89dbcc73/j_jofnem-2018-015_fig_005.jpg?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIA6AP2G7AKEPVW57QF%2F20260305%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20260305T153704Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEAcaDGV1LWNlbnRyYWwtMSJGMEQCIC6qu%2FAMWibSB6JRsB1VcR%2F7h2TWDFvdT7P8nsb0kWfjAiBWEZ2XQbxHjmJoDbu2M4tZqHBNCYmWoQ1NwWMsrtxtPSrEBQjQ%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAIaDDk2MzEzNDI4OTk0MCIMy9pjNv%2FkhYDz3cCRKpgFfujuV6SAbPimjwghArKCbBFE1m39qOWYeIXRtJSkUALAaif8MKBKfN1vwPIUBIRTwwBbPdiWO5i6fmlT%2BAqDdjbfIXZpOjqT5Rr9I%2FsZR4AtNIMEAyaFH1nBIwaqqq%2BAhmX7n0jjbC8sG%2FK%2B1AffGrJWoe1jMep678aYnrjvCn004cmNX4o89YiBvL7eRYck4gs7koXrr%2BccIJ1GbsM977UEy%2FDkLJLEfIN8pndIew%2BkoIv%2BkV0r2mviNEz13jGceANgnXd%2Bwkui3oYMouRvTWiMF14hU09eAQLI7B4wuI9ZUDY%2BSzs5Dnl6QzkJPg8R6qwvHG93pwiiNwGuHLWw0oDeCvSeYt7EIFSlmLGiZfV94YbLZj5ojlFETWYahLDo6jTbsI4Oxp6imoyELdgvfiURBDWOLtTpNpvef4PFF0bYjBDtZJaApvLFlKdpB8qmJ%2BTOnRgJ4FthTA%2FT0sBGP7wvjAhpLYWfL5SYtI%2FPFxGKD6ZVN4F8S20qD5yjEt5jXafA8gIpWYwzm20p6Uaa4I%2BFEZp21QoLt15eUJVDz7zXeRwophZ9Z7CWZk6BottPHocDvjMMozdfBc1xOTZ0UoOrMSOiN1D0clPHDmAYrbeKAtpZWH0re%2BYOvrAGpnA4fBnyKYAIE2udU%2FUBIEgu%2F4ld8RJDpr0D%2FATXcNYLw%2FYWuPdsGUPMHFjNFvEoNUvoUVtMMvmZakwyt5%2BIZzFdBVvKHE10C%2FttwCLXEVwGF1OfpyPKk91gDeDHHUAzBAi4zjMErMrSfI8f%2BtOWK63bO1N1bmUNJzB8RAb71sx4lYR06N1lKi9PepJuQARIYE1hIkFGjJQdyGjPjdwabfRk2l9fOGjH0VSG2vGz7NgJnpoIYwxZEJuuyDCDv6bNBjqyARtd3HpPyPfgCIfw4yzU73x2Ck0EDCUp7qHk30jv28lB0xaSV36qjL1ntYvZh3PkXF1FsPZ8L8u43sc48QQVwCbYFeW5zW%2BIU%2FuwIrjtVqAPfOzxRrun15PY6VT6fscWGrLKRnPB5bTi423RhzAjmCgr88Ti%2FaXbm%2FF9%2Bh%2BK1X6CBY6ttYcJvyj76llf4KIIUHDetIITsTTfGidjuIM3%2FG4r74rdEYAts7Qjgb3IpONR4Uk%3D&X-Amz-Signature=bf7a90f6ebc4d80c8ec217d5238acb58847f9fc0053b6b40b449a0b334eddabc&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&x-amz-checksum-mode=ENABLED&x-id=GetObject)
Fig. 6
![Evolutionary relationship of Meloidogyne indica using mitochondrial COI sequences. The evolutionary history was inferred by using the maximum likelihood method based on General Time Reversible model. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 1,000 replicates is taken to represent the evolutionary history of the analyzed taxa. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 30% bootstrap replicates are collapsed. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1,000 replicates) is shown next to the branches. Initial tree(s) for the heuristic search were obtained automatically by applying neighbour-joining and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the maximum composite likelihood approach and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value (−2471.1920). A discrete Gamma distribution was used to model evolutionary rate differences among sites (five categories [+G, parameter = 0.5728]). The analysis involved 21 nucleotide sequences. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. There were a total of 309 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6.](https://sciendo-parsed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/64722076215d2f6c89dbcc73/j_jofnem-2018-015_fig_006.jpg?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIA6AP2G7AKEPVW57QF%2F20260305%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20260305T153704Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEAcaDGV1LWNlbnRyYWwtMSJGMEQCIC6qu%2FAMWibSB6JRsB1VcR%2F7h2TWDFvdT7P8nsb0kWfjAiBWEZ2XQbxHjmJoDbu2M4tZqHBNCYmWoQ1NwWMsrtxtPSrEBQjQ%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAIaDDk2MzEzNDI4OTk0MCIMy9pjNv%2FkhYDz3cCRKpgFfujuV6SAbPimjwghArKCbBFE1m39qOWYeIXRtJSkUALAaif8MKBKfN1vwPIUBIRTwwBbPdiWO5i6fmlT%2BAqDdjbfIXZpOjqT5Rr9I%2FsZR4AtNIMEAyaFH1nBIwaqqq%2BAhmX7n0jjbC8sG%2FK%2B1AffGrJWoe1jMep678aYnrjvCn004cmNX4o89YiBvL7eRYck4gs7koXrr%2BccIJ1GbsM977UEy%2FDkLJLEfIN8pndIew%2BkoIv%2BkV0r2mviNEz13jGceANgnXd%2Bwkui3oYMouRvTWiMF14hU09eAQLI7B4wuI9ZUDY%2BSzs5Dnl6QzkJPg8R6qwvHG93pwiiNwGuHLWw0oDeCvSeYt7EIFSlmLGiZfV94YbLZj5ojlFETWYahLDo6jTbsI4Oxp6imoyELdgvfiURBDWOLtTpNpvef4PFF0bYjBDtZJaApvLFlKdpB8qmJ%2BTOnRgJ4FthTA%2FT0sBGP7wvjAhpLYWfL5SYtI%2FPFxGKD6ZVN4F8S20qD5yjEt5jXafA8gIpWYwzm20p6Uaa4I%2BFEZp21QoLt15eUJVDz7zXeRwophZ9Z7CWZk6BottPHocDvjMMozdfBc1xOTZ0UoOrMSOiN1D0clPHDmAYrbeKAtpZWH0re%2BYOvrAGpnA4fBnyKYAIE2udU%2FUBIEgu%2F4ld8RJDpr0D%2FATXcNYLw%2FYWuPdsGUPMHFjNFvEoNUvoUVtMMvmZakwyt5%2BIZzFdBVvKHE10C%2FttwCLXEVwGF1OfpyPKk91gDeDHHUAzBAi4zjMErMrSfI8f%2BtOWK63bO1N1bmUNJzB8RAb71sx4lYR06N1lKi9PepJuQARIYE1hIkFGjJQdyGjPjdwabfRk2l9fOGjH0VSG2vGz7NgJnpoIYwxZEJuuyDCDv6bNBjqyARtd3HpPyPfgCIfw4yzU73x2Ck0EDCUp7qHk30jv28lB0xaSV36qjL1ntYvZh3PkXF1FsPZ8L8u43sc48QQVwCbYFeW5zW%2BIU%2FuwIrjtVqAPfOzxRrun15PY6VT6fscWGrLKRnPB5bTi423RhzAjmCgr88Ti%2FaXbm%2FF9%2Bh%2BK1X6CBY6ttYcJvyj76llf4KIIUHDetIITsTTfGidjuIM3%2FG4r74rdEYAts7Qjgb3IpONR4Uk%3D&X-Amz-Signature=5e1d5e40aed3199f15a4faa6653fd407136f839323051bf10d8e39613ebd14a7&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&x-amz-checksum-mode=ENABLED&x-id=GetObject)
Morphometrics for Meloidogyne indica infecting neem and citrus_ All linear measurements are in micrometer and in the form of mean ± SD_
| Neem population | Citrus population (After Whitehead, 1968) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Character | J2 | Male | Female | J2 | Female |
| n | 20 | 15 | 30 | 25 | 8 |
| L | 484 ± 31.5 (430–520) | 1253 ± 80 (1180–1380) | 653 ± 92.2 (450–790) | 414 ± 4.5 (381–448) | – |
| Body width | 18 ± 1.5 (16.77–21.15) | 28 ± 4 (24.55–34.66) | 408 ± 75 (325–550) | – | – |
| A | 26.68 ± 1.9 (24.20–29.87) | 44.89 ± 3.5 (39.81–48.06) | 1.60 ± 0.3 (1.38–2.10) | – | – |
| Stylet length | 13.8 ± 0.1 (13.57–14.21) | 16.3 ± 0.4 (15.90–17.08) | 13.7 ± 0.4 (13.32–14.18) | 12 ± 0.9 (10–14) | 14 (12–16) |
| DGO | 2.8 ± 0.2 (2.45–3.25) | 3.1 ± 0.1 (2.92–3.30) | 2.9 ± 0.3 (2.49–3.67) | – | 3 (2–4) |
| Head-metacorpus | 50 ± 2.3 (46.45–53.02) | 73 ± 4.1 (68.70–78.14) | – | – | – |
| Head-oesophageal gland | 138 ± 4.8 (129.97–144.65) | – | – | – | – |
| b′ | 3.5 ± 0.1 (3.10–3.65) | – | – | – | – |
| c | 26.2 ± 1.2 (24.15–27.65) | – | – | 24.9 ± 1.36 (21.2–31) | – |
| c′ | 1.6 ± 0.1 (1.52–1.91) | – | – | 1.57 ± 0.012 (1.06–1.78) | – |
| Tail length | 18 ± 0.6 (17.50–19.50) | – | – | 16.8 ± 1.88 (13–20.1) | – |
| Anal body width | 11.1 ± 1.0 (9.85–12.45) | – | – | – | – |
| Spicule | – | 26 ± 0.6 (25.90–27.50) | – | – | – |
List of primers used for polymerase chain reaction amplification in this study_
| Primer name | Gene | Sequence | References |
| V5367 | ITS | 5′-TTGATTACGTCCCTGCCCTTT-3′ | Vrain et al. (1992) |
| 26S | ITS | 5′-TTTCACTCGCCGTTACTAAGG-3′ | Vrain et al. (1992) |
| D2A | LSU | 5′-ACAAGTACCGTGAGGGAAAGTTG-3′ | Castillo et al. (2003) |
| D3B | LSU | 5′-TCGGAAGGAACCAGCTACTA-3′ | Castillo et al. (2003) |
| JB3 | COI | 5′-TTTTTTGGGCATCCTGAGGTTTAT-3′ | Bowles et al. (1992) |
| JB5 | COI | 5′-AGCACCTAAACTTAAAACATAATGAAAATG-3′ | Derycke et al. (2005) |
List of GenBank accession numbers used in phylogenetic analyses (** Not found in NCBI database)_
| Species | ITS rRNA | D2D3 28S rRNA | COI mtDNA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meloidogyne arabicida | ** | KF993624 | ** |
| Meloidogyne africana | ** | ** | KY433441 |
| Meloidogyne arenaria | AF387092 | JX987332 | JX683705 |
| Meloidogyne artiellia | KC545880 | AY150369 | KU517173 |
| Meloidogyne baetica | AY150366 | AY150367 | ** |
| Meloidogyne camelliae | JX912885 | KF542869 | KM887148 |
| Meloidogyne chitwoodi | AY281852 | AF435802 | KU517168 |
| Meloidogyne christiei | KR082319 | KR082317 | ** |
| Meloidogyne dunensis | EF612711 | EF612712 | ** |
| Meloidogyne duytsi | ** | ** | KU517177 |
| Meloidogyne enterolobii | KM046989 | KJ146862 | KT936633 |
| Meloidogyne ethiopica | KF482366 | KF482372 | ** |
| Meloidogyne exigua | ** | AF435795 | ** |
| Meloidogyne fallax | AY281853 | KC241969 | KU517182 |
| Meloidogyne graminicola | KM111531 | KJ728847 | KY250093 |
| Meloidogyne graminis | JN157866 | JN019326 | ** |
| Meloidogyne hapla | EU908052 | DQ145641 | JX683719 |
| Meloidogyne haplanaria | ** | ** | KU174206 |
| Meloidogyne hispanica | EU443613 | EU443607 | JX683712 |
| Meloidogyne ichinohei | ** | EF029862 | KY433448 |
| Meloidogyne incognita | KJ739707 | JX100425 | JX683696 |
| Meloidogyne indica | KC311146 | MF680038 | MF662179 |
| Meloidogyne inornata | KF482368 | KF482374 | ** |
| Meloidogyne izalcoensis | ** | KF993621 | ** |
| Meloidogyne javanica | KJ739709 | KC953092 | JX683711 |
| Meloidogyne konaensis | ** | AF435797 | ** |
| Meloidogyne lopezi | ** | KF993616 | ** |
| Meloidogyne luci | KF482365 | KF482371 | ** |
| Meloidogyne mali | JX978228 | KF880398 | KU517175 |
| Meloidogyne marylandi | JN157854 | JN019333 | |
| Meloidogyne minor | KC241953 | JN628436 | KU517178 |
| Meloidogyne naasi | KJ934132 | KC241979 | KU517170 |
| Meloidogyne panyuensis | ** | ** | ** |
| Meloidogyne paranaensis | ** | AF435799 | ** |
| Meloidogyne silvestris | EU570216 | EU570214 | ** |
| Meloidogyne spartelensis | KP896294 | KP895293 | KP997301 |
| Meloidogyne thailandica | AY858795 | EU364890 | ** |
| Meloidogyne trifoliophila | JX465593 | AF435801 | ** |
| Pratylenchus vulnus | FJ713011 | EU130885 | KX349427 |
| Hirschmanniella oryzae | DQ309588 | JX291142 | ** |
| Tylenchorhynchus leviterminalis | EF030984 | KJ475548 | ** |
| Heterodera glycines | HM370421 | GU595446 | ** |
| Radopholus similis | KJ845638 | JN091964 | KX349430 |
| Heterotheca mucronata | ** | ** | KR819278 |
| Tylenchorhynchus sp | ** | ** | KY639376 |