| Literature DB >> 27672503 |
Ryan P Kelly1, James L O'Donnell1, Natalie C Lowell2, Andrew O Shelton3, Jameal F Samhouri3, Shannon M Hennessey4, Blake E Feist3, Gregory D Williams3.
Abstract
Despite decades of work in environmental science and ecology, estimating human influences on ecosystems remains challenging. This is partly due to complex chains of causation among ecosystem elements, exacerbated by the difficulty of collecting biological data at sufficient spatial, temporal, and taxonomic scales. Here, we demonstrate the utility of environmental DNA (eDNA) for quantifying associations between human land use and changes in an adjacent ecosystem. We analyze metazoan eDNA sequences from water sampled in nearshore marine eelgrass communities and assess the relationship between these ecological communities and the degree of urbanization in the surrounding watershed. Counter to conventional wisdom, we find strongly increasing richness and decreasing beta diversity with greater urbanization, and similar trends in the diversity of life histories with urbanization. We also find evidence that urbanization influences nearshore communities at local (hundreds of meters) rather than regional (tens of km) scales. Given that different survey methods sample different components of an ecosystem, we then discuss the advantages of eDNA-which we use here to detect hundreds of taxa simultaneously-as a complement to traditional ecological sampling, particularly in the context of broad ecological assessments where exhaustive manual sampling is impractical. Genetic data are a powerful means of uncovering human-ecosystem interactions that might otherwise remain hidden; nevertheless, no sampling method reveals the whole of a biological community.Entities:
Keywords: Environmental impact assessment; Estuarine; Marine; Metabarcoding; Metagenomics; Molecular ecology
Year: 2016 PMID: 27672503 PMCID: PMC5028742 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2444
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Study site sampling locations and associated stream basins.
Matched site pairs share a stream basin color. More urban sites are open boxes, less urban are black boxes. Two-letter codes correspond to site names in the ‘Methods.’ Brown shading indicates areas with greater than 50% area weighted-mean imperviousness.
Summary of 16s read annotations.
Summary of taxonomic annotations for 16S reads; for full annotations, see the Supplemental Information.
| Phylum | Classes | Orders | Families | Other rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mollusca | 3 | 6 | 34 | 9 |
| Arthropoda | 6 | 13 | 29 | 10 |
| Chordata | 5 | 28 | 37 | 28 |
| Bryozoa | 1 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
| Echinodermata | 5 | 8 | 13 | 4 |
| Nemertea | 3 | 2 | 8 | 0 |
| Hemichordata | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Entoprocta | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Porifera | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Figure 2Alpha, beta, and gamma diversity recovered from water samples in Puget Sound along an urbanization gradient.
(A and B) Rarefied OTU richness and imperviousness—a proxy for urbanization—in Puget Sound. Analysis of a single focal rarefaction draw. (A) Rarefied 16s eDNA richness (solid trendline reflects OTUs; dashed trendline reflects taxonomic Families). Site means (larger circles) among transect-level data points (smaller circles). Family data shifted slightly for clarity. (B) The same data by site pair (N = 4 pairs of more- and less- urban sites), means plotted. Red lines indicate significant trends. Legends correspond to 2-letter site codes in Fig. 1. (C and D) (C) Mean among-transect (within-site) Whittaker’s beta diversity for each of 1,000 rarefaction draws from the overall OTU dataset, rarefied to create comparable sample sizes (N = 1.3 × 105 OTUs per transect). Linear regression on site means, R2 = 0.95, p = 3.38 × 10−5. (D) Site means highlight the site-pair trends for single focal rarefaction draw. (E) Regional (gamma) diversity, in OTUs-per- site, as an accumulation curve. Boxplots show variance due to sampling each each set of sites (with replacement) 1,000 times from a pool of 1,000 rarefaction draws from the overall OTU dataset, rarefied to create comparable sample sizes (N = 1.3 × 105 OTUs per transect). Best-fit logarithmic curves shown for more-urban sites (N = 4), less-urban sites (N = 4), and all sites (N = 8).