4.1 Article

High species richness and genetic diversity of the genus Caloglossa (Delesseriaceae, Rhodophyta) in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea

Journal

PHYCOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 66, Issue 3, Pages 218-230

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pre.12223

Keywords

genetic diversity; heterozygosity; large subunit rDNA; mangrove algae; molecular phylogeny; rbcL; gall-like structure

Funding

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [15K07194]
  2. Australian Biological Resources Study
  3. Hermon Slade Foundation
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K07194] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Distribution patterns and genetic diversity of Caloglossa species have been studied in various regions but are still poorly understood around the tropical western Pacific where many marine organisms show high species richness. We explored the diversity of Caloglossa species in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea using morphological and genetic analyses. Seven species of Caloglossa (C. adhaerens, C. leprieurii, C. ogasawaraensis, C. bengalensis, C. postiae, C. saigonensis and C. vieillardii) were collected from eight sites; the latter four species are new records in Papua New Guinea. All specimens collected were cultured to compare their morphology under the same culture condition. Reproductive structures of gametophytes and/or sporophytes were described for the first time in some species from these collections. In C. leprieurii, gall-like structure appeared in most gametophyte strains but not in tetrasporophytes. Such galls were produced from wing cells, and spermatangia and/or procarps were formed on many galls. The LSU rDNA and rbcL analyses revealed high intraspecific diversity in many species although the number of samples was limited and the sampling sites were within 200 km. We revealed high species richness and intraspecific genetic variation in Papua New Guinea, suggesting a hot spot for the diversity of Caloglossa.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available