Improving biodiversity assessment of anuran amphibians using DNA barcoding of tadpoles. Case studies from Southeast Asia

Abstract

Amphibian populations are dramatically declining, while their inventory is far from being achieved. Tadpoles are usually overlooked from biodiversity survey, whereas their consideration will optimize species counts and knowledge of their ecological and developmental requirements is essential in conservation planning. Two mitochondrial markers, 16S (397 new sequences obtained) and COI (343 new sequences obtained), are used to test DNA barcoding on a set of larval and adult Asian amphibians represented by 83 recognized species from 65 sites. The advantages and drawbacks of each marker are assessed, COI barcoding being advocated for global DNA barcoding, whereas 16S suits for taxonomically or geographically restricted DNA barcoding. About half of the collected tadpoles were badly identified or incompletely named in the field. All tadpole sequences (except one case of probable introgressive hybridization) were correctly assigned to their respective species. Finally six clusters of tadpole sequences without conspecific adults were revealed, stressing the importance of collecting and taking into account tadpoles in biodiversity survey and conservation planning.

Molecular identification of the morphologically cryptic Asian common treefrogs (Anura: Rhacophoridae, Polypedates leucomystax complex) in Thailand

“…According to our results and the previous studies (Kuraishi et al, 2013;Rujirawan et al, 2013;Grosjean et al, 2015;Buddhachat and Suwannapoom, 2018), there are seven species of the P. leucomystax complex in Thailand; P. leucomystax, P. megacephalus, P. mutus, P. braueri, P. discantus, P. impresus and Polypedates sp.…”

Molecular phylogenetic analysis of a taxonomically unstable ranid from Sumatra, Indonesia, reveals a new genus with gastromyzophorous tadpoles and two new species

“…macrodactyla Günther, 1858, Clinotarsus alticola (Boulenger, 1882), Cli. penelope Grosjean, Bordoloi, Chuaynkern, Chakravarty &Ohler, 2015, andStaurois guttatus (Günther, 1858), particularly to serve as generotypic representatives. We applied the name Cli.…”

“…alticola (FMNH 268338), because it was identical with available sequences (16S) of Cli. penelope (Genbank accession numbers KR827723 [MNHN 2000.4633] and KR827724 [MNHN 930P]; Grosjean et al 2015).…”

A new species ofLeptobrachium(Anura, Megophryidae) from western Thailand

“…Leptobrachium rakhinensis Wogan, 2012: 1-Nyaung Gwo, Padaung Twn., Pyi Distr., Bago Div., Myanmar (Wogan, 2012); 2-Rakhine Yoma W.S., Gwa Twn., Rakhine St., Myanmar (type locality) (Wogan, 2012); 3-Khoko Gwe, Rakhine Yoma W.S., Gwa Twn., Rakhine St., Myanmar (type locality) (Wogan, 2012). Leptobrachium smithi Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999: 4-Ma Gawe Res., Kalaw Twn., Taunggyi Dist., Shan St., Myanmar (Wogan, 2012); 5-Phasua W.F., Mae Hong Son Prov., Thailand (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999); 6-Doi Chiang Dao Mt., Chiang Mai Prov., Thailand; 7-Doi Suthep Mt., Chiang Mai Prov., Thailand (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999) ; 8-Doi Inthanon Mt., Chiang Mai Prov., Thailand (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999); 9-Mae Yom N.P., Phrae Prov., Thailand (C Suwannapoom, 2018, unpublished data); 10-Tambol Auan, Amphoe Pua, Nan Prov., Thailand (FMNH 270740); 11-Houay Deng, Xaignabouli, Sayaboury Prov., Laos (Brown et al, 2009); 12-Houey Thao, Luang Prabang, Luang Prabang Prov., Laos (Ohler et al, 2011); 13-Ban Sop Khao, Ban Keng Koung, Ban Van Thong, Luang Prabang Prov., Laos (Ohler et al, 2011); 14-Kyaik Hti Yo W.S., Kyaihto Twn., Mon St., Myanmar (Wogan, 2012; Matsui et al, 2010); 15-Taksinmaharat N.P., Tak Prov., Thailand (P Pawangkhanant, 2018, unpublished data); 16-Thung Salaeng Luang N.P., Phetchabun Prov., Thailand (Grosjean et al, 2015); 17-Phu Luang N.P., Loei Prov., Thailand (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999; Matsui et al, 2010); 18-Nam Nao N.P., Chaiyaphum Prov., Thailand (P Pawangkhanant, 2018, unpublished data); 19-Huai Kha Khaeng W.S., Uthai Thani Prov., Thailand (Niyomwan, Srisom & Pawangkhanant, 2016); 20-Sangkhla Buri Distr., Kanchanaburi Prov., Thailand (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999); 21-Erawan and Pilok Distr., Kanchanaburi Prov., Thailand (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999); 22-Kaeng Krachan, Phetchaburi Prov., Thailand (Matsui et al, 2010); 23-Pa Lao U, Phetchaburi Prov., Thailand (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999); 24-Tanintharyi N.R., Yebyu Twn., Dawei Distr., Tanintharyi Div., Myanmar (Wogan, 2012); 25-Khlong Saen, Surat Thani Prov., Thailand (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999); 26-Namtok Raman F.P. ; Phang Nga Prov., Thailand (Ohler et al, 2011; Grosjean et al, 2015); 27-Phuket Isl., Phang Nga Prov., Thailand (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999); 28-Khao Luang N.P., Nakhon Si Thammarat Prov., Thailand (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999); 29-Kaochong, Trang Prov., Thailand (type locality) (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999; Matsui et al, 2010); 30-Tha Le Ban National Park, Satun Prov., Thailand (P Pawangkhanant, 2018, unpublished data); 31-Langkawi Isl., Perlis, Malaysia (Matsui, Nabhitabhata & Panha, 1999; Matsui et al, 2010; Grismer et a...…”