4.6 Article

Evaluation of six candidate DNA barcode loci for identification of five important invasive grasses in eastern Australia

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175338

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSW Weeds Action Programs (WAP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Invasive grass weeds reduce farm productivity, threaten biodiversity, and increase weed control costs. Identification of invasive grasses from native grasses has generally relied on the morphological examination of grass floral material. DNA barcoding may provide an alternative means to identify co-occurring native and invasive grasses, particularly during early growth stages when floral characters are unavailable for analysis. However, there are no universal loci available for grass barcoding. We herein evaluated the utility of six candidate loci (atpF intron, matK, ndhK-ndhC, psbE-petL, ETS and ITS) for barcode identification of several economically important invasive grass species frequently found among native grasses in eastern Australia. We evaluated these loci in 66 specimens representing five invasive grass species (Chloris gayana, Eragrostis curvula, Hyparrhenia hirta, Nassella neesiana, Nassella trichotoma) and seven native grass species. Our results indicated that, while no single locus can be universally used as a DNA barcode for distinguishing the grass species examined in this study, two plastid loci (atpF and matK) showed good distinguishing power to separate most of the taxa examined, and could be used as a dual locus to distinguish several of the invasive from the native species. Low PCR success rates were evidenced among two nuclear loci (ETS and ITS), and few species were amplified at these loci, however ETS was able to genetically distinguish the two important invasive Nassella species. Multiple loci analyses also suggested that ETS played a crucial role in allowing identification of the two Nassella species in the multiple loci combinations.

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

4.6
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