4.2 Article

Examination of species delimitation of ambiguous DNA-based Ulva (Ulvophyceae, Chlorophyta) clades by culturing and hybridisation

期刊

PHYCOLOGIA
卷 56, 期 5, 页码 517-532

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.2216/16-109.1

关键词

Asexual; Life history; Prezygotic isolation; Postzygotic isolation; Sexual; Species boundary; Taxonomy; Ulva mediterranea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phylogenetic clades based on DNA sequence data are heavily used to delimit species in the current taxonomy of Ulva. However, because hybridisation within clades and among other clades for other species has been seldom tested, it remains unclear if molecular clades agree with species boundaries based on the biological species concept. An ITS-based Ulva clade including many specimens collected worldwide was provisionally named 'U. flexuosa'; its species boundary is ambiguous, and in the literature this group has been variously merged with the closely related U. californica clade. In the present study, we clarified the species boundary of this clade and its taxonomic status. Namely reproductive relationships among strains in this and closely related clades were examined by culturing and hybridisation. The culture experiment demonstrated that the ITS-based clade includes a sexual variant and an obligate asexual variant. The sexual strains having 0%-0.4% divergence in ITS2 sequence successfully crossed with each other. In combinations among the closely related clades including true U. flexuosa with. > 1.2% distance in the sequence, no hybridisation occurred. With U. californica strains having a 1.2% sequence divergence, the provisional 'U. flexuosa' strains had few hybrid sporophytes, and these produced zoids that failed to develop normally. Based on these observations of prezygotic and postzygotic isolation, we conclude that the ITS-based clade delimits a different species from U. flexuosa and U. californica. Taxonomically, both the sexual and the asexual variants are assigned to U. mediterranea.

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

4.2
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