4.4 Article

Extension of the distribution range of Hypnea stellulifera (Cystocloniaceae, Rhodophyta) to the South Atlantic: Morphological and molecular evidence

期刊

AQUATIC BOTANY
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 26-36

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2014.12.003

关键词

cox1; Intraspecific variation; Range extension; South America

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [BrBOL 564945/2010-2, UNIVERSAL 477614/2013-2]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia (FAPESB, PRONEM) [T.O. PNE.0020/2011, T.O.RED006/2012]
  3. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypnea stellulifera was, until now, considered endemic to tropical Asia. Here, we report for the first time the expansion of its distribution to the Atlantic Ocean on the basis of collections from the northeast of Brazil. Comparison of morphological features of our specimens with Asian specimens of H. stellulifera and molecular data analysis allow us to confirm its identification. Samples analyzed in this,study represent the first assessment of Hypnea sequences collected in a tropical area from South America. Among the three genes analyzed (the mitochondrial cox1 and the plastidial UPA and rbcL), UPA was the most conserved, and the cox1 was the most variable marker. Despite this, all three markers were efficient as DNA barcoding markers for Hypnea. In our phylogenetic analysis, H. stellulifera had a sister relationship with the clade that includes H. cornuta, H. musciformis, H. flagelliformis, and H. chordacea. Our results demonstrate that the analysis of Hypnea species collected at large geographic distances and/or in different tropical areas reveals a higher degree of intraspecific variation as well as decreased interspecific divergence among distinct species from closer areas. These findings corroborate the necessity of a combined analysis of morphology and different genetic markers for a better understanding of taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus Hypnea. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据