Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T17:21:31.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pyrolysis Mass Spectrometry as a Technique For Studying Inter- and Intraspecific Relationships in the Genus Fucus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

F.G. Hardy ,
G.W. Scott ,
P.R. Sisson ,
N.F. Lightfoot  and
Mulyadi
F.G. Hardy
Affiliation:
Department of Marine Sciences and Coastal Management, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU.
G.W. Scott
Affiliation:
University College Scarborough, Filey Road, Scarborough, North Yorkshire, YOU 3AZ.
N.F. Lightfoot
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory, Institute of Pathology, Newcastle General Hospital, Westgate Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 6BE.
Mulyadi
Affiliation:
Department of Marine Sciences and Coastal Management, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Pyrolysis mass spectrometry (PyMS) was used to investigate the relationships of members of the genus Fucus (F. spiralis, F. veskulosus, F. ceranoides and F. serratus), and between F. spiralis and F. spiralis forma nanus. Fucus spiralis and F. spiralis forma nanus were not separable by PyMS and are thus a single species. Fucus spiralis, F. veskulosus, F. ceranoides and F. serratus were separable and their status as species confirmed. The pattern of relatedness between these species suggests a re-evaluation of their evolutionary history in that F. spiralis, F. vesiculosus and F. serratus are more similar to one another than to F. ceranoides. Pyrolysis mass spectrometry was also used to investigate the position of plants identified as putative hybrids between F. spiralis and F. vesiculosus. These plants were found to be intermediate between the two species thus confirming morphological evidence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 35 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bolwell, G.P., Callow, J.A., Callow, M.E. & Evans, L.V., 1977. Cross-fertilisation in fucoid seaweeds. Nature, London, 268, 626–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, E.M. & Lodge, S., 1951. Autecology and the species problem in Fucus. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 30, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, D.E.G., 1982. Seaweeds of the Faroes 1: the flora. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Botany), 10, 109–131.Google Scholar
Kalvas, A. & Kautsky, L., 1993. Geographical variation in Fucus vesiculosus morphology in the Baltic and North Seas. European Journal of Phycology, 28, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, M. & Parke, M., 1950. A biological study of Fucus vesiculosus L. and F. serratus L. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 29, 439–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lein, T.E., 1984. Distribution, reproduction and ecology of Fucus ceranoides L. (Phaeophyta) in Norway. Sarsia, 69, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, D.G. & Gassmann, G., 1985. Sexual reproduction and the role of sperm attractants in monoecious species of the brown algal order Fucales (Fucus, Hesperophycus, Pelvetia and Pelvetiopsis). Journal of Plant Physiology, 118, 401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulyadi, , 1995. Studies on hybridisation between species of the genus Fucus (Phaeophyta, Fucales). MPhil thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Powell, H.T., 1963. Speciation in the genus Fucus L., and related genera. In Speciation in the sea (ed. J.P., Harding and N., Tebble), pp. 63–77. London: Systematics Association. [Systematics Association Publication, no. 5.]Google Scholar
Russell, G., 1995. Pyrolysis mass spectrometry: a fresh approach to old problems in brown algal systematics? Marine Biology, 123, 153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schueller, G.H. & Peters, A.F., 1994. Arrival of Fucus evanescens (Phaeophyceae) in Kiel Bight (western Baltic). Botanica Marina, 37, 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G.W. & Hardy, F.G., 1994. Observations on the occurrence of hybrids between two sympatric species of fucoid algae. Cryptogamie, Algologie, 15, 297–305.Google Scholar
Shute, L.A., Berkeley, R.C.E., Norris, J.R. & Gutteridge, C.S., 1985. Pyrolysis mass spectrometry in bacterial systematics. Chemical methods in bacterial systematics (ed. M., Goodfellow et al.), pp. 95–114. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sisson, P.R., Freeman, R., Lightfoot, N.F. & Richardson, I.R., 1991. Incrimination of an environmental source of a case of Legionaires’ disease by pyrolysis mass spectrometry. Epidemiology and Infection, 107, 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sisson, P.R., Lightfoot, N.F. & Freeman, R., 1992. Pyrolysis mass spectrometry of micro-organisms. PHLS Microbiology Digest, 9, 65–68.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Michener, C.D., 1958. A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. Kansas University Science Bulletin, 38, 1409–1438.Google Scholar
Wynne, M.J. & Magne, F., 1991. Concerning the name Fucus muscoides (Cotton) J. Feldmann et Magne. Cryptogamie Algologie, 12, 55–65.Google Scholar