2020
DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-50653/v2
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gap-analysis of DNA barcoding in ERMS reference libraries for ascidians and cnidarians

Abstract: BackgroundAll-inclusive DNA barcoding libraries in the storage and analysis platform of the BOLD (Barcode of Life Data) system are essential for the study of the marine biodiversity and are pertinent for regulatory purposes, including ecosystem monitoring and assessment, such as in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Here we investigate knowledge gaps in the lists of DNA barcoded organisms within two inventories, Cnidaria (Anthozoa and Hydro… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 22 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, DNA barcoding has been proposed as a tool for rapid species identification (Hebert et al, 2003(Hebert et al, , 2004, but the term 'species identification' has not had a standard meaning in the barcoding literature (Goldstein & DeSalle, 2011;Collins & Cruickshank, 2013;DeSalle & Goldstein, 2019). Further issues relate to adherence of arbitrary distance thresholds (Wiemers & Fiedler, 2007), incomplete reference databases, misidentified sequences and more (Collins & Cruickshank, 2013;Ransome et al, 2017;Paz & Rinkevich, 2020). In spite of these complications, improvements have been made to optimize identification thresholds and assess their viability for certain groups (Virgilio et al, 2012), and it cannot be denied that molecular data have proven vital to the discovery of cryptic species, which are two or more distinct species previously unrecognized due to apparent or real morphological resemblance (Bickford et al, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, DNA barcoding has been proposed as a tool for rapid species identification (Hebert et al, 2003(Hebert et al, , 2004, but the term 'species identification' has not had a standard meaning in the barcoding literature (Goldstein & DeSalle, 2011;Collins & Cruickshank, 2013;DeSalle & Goldstein, 2019). Further issues relate to adherence of arbitrary distance thresholds (Wiemers & Fiedler, 2007), incomplete reference databases, misidentified sequences and more (Collins & Cruickshank, 2013;Ransome et al, 2017;Paz & Rinkevich, 2020). In spite of these complications, improvements have been made to optimize identification thresholds and assess their viability for certain groups (Virgilio et al, 2012), and it cannot be denied that molecular data have proven vital to the discovery of cryptic species, which are two or more distinct species previously unrecognized due to apparent or real morphological resemblance (Bickford et al, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%