Taxonomic identification and life cycle comparison of two populations of the monostromatic green algae Monostroma nitidum

Jiawei Liao,Sipan Wang,Kun Lin,Yongjian Huang,Xinyi Chen,Rong Xin,Youyou Guo,Enyi Xie
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.11424
IF: 3.167
2024-05-22
Ecology and Evolution
Abstract:This study employed molecular markers and morphological studies of two populations of Monostroma nitidum collected from YJ and ZJ. The results revealed no obvious differences in tufA and 18S rDNA sequences between the two populations, although there were extremely significant differences in morphological characteristics. M. nitidum collected from YJ exhibited only a monomorphic asexual life cycle, while samples collected from ZJ followed the typical dimorphic alternation of generations. The results of this study demonstrate that an asexual life cycle is insufficient as the only classification of monostromatic green algae at the genus level. M. nitidum has both sexual and asexual life cycles. The emergence of asexual M. nitidum is the result of environmental selection, they are secondary and have lost the capacity for sexual reproduction for the second time over a long evolutionary period. Monostroma nitidum, a monostromatic green algae (MGA) with high economic value, is distributed worldwide. Life cycle often serves as a fundamental criterion for taxonomic classification. Most researchers consider the life cycle of M. nitidum to involve dimorphic alternation of generations, although the possibility of a monomorphic asexual life cycle remains unclear. In this study, tufA and 18S rDNA sequences were employed as molecular markers, complemented by morphological analysis, to classify and identify MGA in two distinct habitats: Hailing Island reefs (YJ) and Naozhou Island reefs (ZJ). The results of tufA and 18S rDNA sequence analysis revealed that all samples from YJ and ZJ clustered to the same branch (M. nitidum clade) with high bootstrap support and genetic distances of less than 0.000 and 0.005, respectively. However, morphological observations indicated significant differences in the external morphology of the YJ and ZJ samples, although both initially exhibited a filament‐blade form during early development. The life cycle of the ZJ samples exhibited typical dimorphic alternation of generations, whereas the YJ samples only produced biflagellate asexual gametes with negative phototaxis. Gametes of the YJ samples directly developed into new gametophytes without undergoing the sporophyte stage. Consequently, the YJ and ZJ samples were classified as monomorphic asexual and dimorphic sexual M. nitidum, respectively. These findings provide evidence supporting the monomorphic asexual life cycle of M. nitidum for the classification of MGA.
ecology,evolutionary biology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?