2017
DOI: 10.2216/16-77.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematics of the genus Halimeda (Bryopsidales, Chlorophyta) in Brazil including the description of Halimeda jolyana sp. nov.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the range of intraspecific divergence value for tufA observed in this study for Brazilian samples (0-1.57 %) is relatively within the range of variation found for other Bryopsidalean genera, such as Halimeda (0-1.4 %) (Ximenes et al 2019). The interspecific divergence observed for tufA (3.3-16.2 %) is relatively within the range reported for Halimeda, 0.9-12.4 % by Ximenes et al (2017) and 2.0-6.2 % by Ximenes et al (2019), as well as for Codium (Bryopsidales), 1.44-14.65 %, and Ulva (Ulvales), 0.91-9.1 % reported by Saunders & Kucera (2010) Intraspecific divergence within Bryopsis for rbcL (0-0.4 %) was lower than that observed for Halimeda (0.8-1.2 %) by Ximenes et al (2019), whereas the range of interspecific variation for this marker (6.7-11.6 %) is within the range reported for Halimeda, 0.8-11.7 % by Ximenes et al (2017) and 4.5-5.0 % by Ximenes et al (2019). For the psbB marker, Tufiño-Velázquez & Pedroche (2019) proposed a genetic distance range between 5 % to 12 % for species discrimination and, therefore, considered a distance of up to 4.9 % as intraspecific, a higher value than that obtained for tufA and rbcL in this study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the range of intraspecific divergence value for tufA observed in this study for Brazilian samples (0-1.57 %) is relatively within the range of variation found for other Bryopsidalean genera, such as Halimeda (0-1.4 %) (Ximenes et al 2019). The interspecific divergence observed for tufA (3.3-16.2 %) is relatively within the range reported for Halimeda, 0.9-12.4 % by Ximenes et al (2017) and 2.0-6.2 % by Ximenes et al (2019), as well as for Codium (Bryopsidales), 1.44-14.65 %, and Ulva (Ulvales), 0.91-9.1 % reported by Saunders & Kucera (2010) Intraspecific divergence within Bryopsis for rbcL (0-0.4 %) was lower than that observed for Halimeda (0.8-1.2 %) by Ximenes et al (2019), whereas the range of interspecific variation for this marker (6.7-11.6 %) is within the range reported for Halimeda, 0.8-11.7 % by Ximenes et al (2017) and 4.5-5.0 % by Ximenes et al (2019). For the psbB marker, Tufiño-Velázquez & Pedroche (2019) proposed a genetic distance range between 5 % to 12 % for species discrimination and, therefore, considered a distance of up to 4.9 % as intraspecific, a higher value than that obtained for tufA and rbcL in this study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…TufA marker (elongation factor Tu gene) obtained the best results in the universality of the primers and quality of the sequences, being proposed as a DNA barcode for green algae, and as a phylogenetic marker as well (Saunders & Kucera 2010). Its effectiveness and successfully as DNA barcode for green algae, showing good phylogenetic resolution at generic and specific level having proven by Dijoux et al (2012), Famà et al (2002), Ximenes et al (2017;, followed by the rbcL (Rubisco large subunit gene) also considered suitable for phylogenetic reconstruction , having been demonstrated a sufficient level of variation to be informative in intergeneric, inter-and intraspecific studies for green and red algae as well (Freshwater & Rueness 1994;Oliveira-Carvalho et al 2012;Leliaert et al 2014;Ximenes et al 2017;. Both have been widely used for other genera in the Bryopsidales, such as Caulerpa, Codium, and Halimeda (Lam & Zechman 2006;Oliveira-Carvalho et al 2012;Kazi et al 2013;Belton et al 2014;Ximenes et al 2017;, and also for other green algae (Mccourt et al 2000;Shimada et al 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lateral fusion of the surface utricles has been observed in some taxa belonging to the same section of the genus Halimeda as the studied species [42][43][44]. In such cases, two or more adjacent utricles were fused, which, in the surface view, can be recognized by occurrence of a large and usually distinctly elongated polygon [1].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…To better solve this taxonomic issue, we envisage that the multilocus or genomewide data from an expanded specimen sampling could help to fill this taxonomic knowledge gap. Despite the issue of incomplete lineage sorting, echoed by the view by Dijoux et al (2012), Pongparadon et al (2015), and Ximenes et al (2017), we found that tufA remains the most suitable marker for assessing the biodiversity of Halimeda because this marker allows us to quickly identify Halimeda species in that it contains a rich sequence dataset and provides a good phylogenetic resolution at the generic and specific levels.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…These variations and influences pose a great challenge to marine biologists striving to differentiate these species solely based on the external morphologies. The genus Halimeda contains cryptic and pseudocryptic species that can lead to erroneous identifications (Kooistra et al 2002; Verbruggen et al 2006; Pongparadon et al 2015; Cremen et al 2016; Ximenes et al 2017). For example, many species represent criptic diversity and are part of species complexes such as Halimeda cuneata and Halimeda discoidea (Cremen et al 2016; Ximenes et al 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%