4.2 Article

Morphological and genetic characterization of benthic dinoflagellates of the genera Coolia, Ostreopsis and Prorocentrum from the south-eastern Bay of Biscay

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 45-65

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09670262.2010.550387

关键词

Bay of Biscay; Coolia; dinoflagellates; morphology; Ostreopsis; phylogeny; Prorocentrum; toxicity

资金

  1. Department for Environment of Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia
  2. Bilbao-Bizkaia Water Consortium
  3. Basque Government [IT-417-07]
  4. University of the Basque Country

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Benthic dinoflagellates of the genera Coolia, Ostreopsis and Prorocentrum isolated from coastal waters of the south-eastern Bay of Biscay were identified morphologically by means of light microscopy (LM) including epifluorescence microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). To identify the strains to species level, molecular phylogenetic analyses using the nuclear large subunit rDNA (LSU) were performed for 16 strains of the three genera. These morphological and phylogenetic analyses revealed the presence of the following species: Coolia canariensis S. Fraga, Coolia monotis Meunier, Ostreopsis cf. siamensis Schmidt, Prorocentrum emarginatun Fukuyo, P. lima (Ehrenberg) Dodge, P. rhathymum Loeblich III, Sherley Schmidt, and two as yet unidentified species, which in the phylogenetic tree were grouped with different strains of Prorocentrum emarginatun and P. fukuyoi Murray et Nagahama from GenBank. A strain from Minorca (Balearic Islands, western Mediterranean Sea) analysed in this study for comparative purposes and fitting morphologically into the P. emarginatum/P. fukuyoi group also appeared in this cluster, which seems to include morphologically cryptic or semicryptic species. The most common taxa were Coolia monotis, Ostreopsis cf. siamensis and Prorocentrum lima, which appeared at most sampling sites. Only the strains corresponding to Ostreopsis cf. siamensis and Prorocentrum lima were toxic to Artemia franciscana.

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