2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jglr.2018.07.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DNA barcoding vs. morphological identification of larval fish and embryos in Lake Huron: Advantages to a molecular approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
11
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The two species that we could not distinguish on a molecular basis-E. nigrum and E. podostemone-are both members of subgenus Boleostoma; while they are closely related phylogenetically, screening of a longer fragment of the COI gene or of other mitochondrial sequences that distinguish them [25] could provide the basis for development of diagnostic barcoding markers. Similar issues were found regarding inability of COI to resolve members of genus Coregonus, the whitefishes, by Hulley et al [19].…”
Section: Molecular Versus Phenotypic Characterization Of Larval Darterssupporting
confidence: 66%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The two species that we could not distinguish on a molecular basis-E. nigrum and E. podostemone-are both members of subgenus Boleostoma; while they are closely related phylogenetically, screening of a longer fragment of the COI gene or of other mitochondrial sequences that distinguish them [25] could provide the basis for development of diagnostic barcoding markers. Similar issues were found regarding inability of COI to resolve members of genus Coregonus, the whitefishes, by Hulley et al [19].…”
Section: Molecular Versus Phenotypic Characterization Of Larval Darterssupporting
confidence: 66%
“…The sites encompassed a longitudinal gradient of known Etheostoma and Percina habitats and represented spatial variation in environmental conditions encountered by larval darters. Each site was sampled an average of 14.6 (13-16) times in 2015 and 17.2 (15)(16)(17)(18)(19) times in 2018, equivalent to one sample every 5.3 (4.9-6) days in 2015, and one sample every 4.2 (3.8-4.9) days in 2018.…”
Section: Field Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…DNA metabarcoding is proposed as a tool to reduce the time and cost necessary for morphological identification: the cost of DNA metabarcoding using high throughput sequencing techniques (HTS) is comparable to or even lower than traditional morphology-based methods (Hulley et al, 2018;Yu et al, 2012). The use of DNA metabarcoding could also result in substantial reduction in time spent on identification.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%