4.4 Article

A taxonomic account of non-geniculate coralline algae (Corallinophycidae, Rhodophyta) from shallow reefs of the Abrolhos Bank, Brazil

Journal

ALGAE
Volume 31, Issue 4, Pages 317-340

Publisher

KOREAN SOC PHYCOLOGY
DOI: 10.4490/algae.2016.31.11.16

Keywords

Atlantic; Corallinales; Hapalidiales; psbA; Sporolithales; taxonomy

Funding

  1. Brazilian Science Support Agency CNPq
  2. Brazilian Science Support Agency FAPERJ
  3. P&D program ANP/BRASOIL
  4. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)
  5. CNPq [PDJ 400654/2014-8]
  6. Smithsonian Institution

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Abrolhos Continental Shelf (ACS) encompasses the largest and richest coral reefs in the southern Atlantic Ocean. A taxonomic study of non-geniculate coralline algae (NGCA) from the region was undertaken using both morpho-anatomical and molecular data. Specimens of NGCA were collected in 2012 and 2014 from shallow reefs of the ACS. Phylogenetic analysis was performed using dataset of psbA DNA sequences from 16 specimens collected in the ACS and additional GenBank sequences of related NGCA species. Nine common tropical reef-building NGCA species were identified and described: Hydrolithon boergesenii, Lithophyllum kaiseri, Lithophyllum sp., Lithothamnion crispatum, Melyvonnea erubescens, Pneophyllum conicum, Porolithon onkodes, Sporolithon ptychoides, and Titanoderma prototypum. A key for species identification is also provided in this study. Our molecular phylogenetic analyses suggest that Lithophyllum sp. corresponds to a new species. Our study also confirms that Lithophyllum kaiseri is a new record in Brazil. The psbA sequences of Lithophyllum kaiseri and Melyvonnea erubescens matched with type specimens indirectly. The taxonomic identification of the remaining species was supported by morpho-anatomical evidences as DNA sequences of their types or topotypes remain unavailable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available