Literature DB >> 33437412

Swimming against the flow-Environmental DNA can detect bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) across a dynamic deltaic interface.

James Marcus Drymon1,2, Katherine E Schweiss3, Emily A Seubert1, Ryan N Lehman3, Toby S Daly-Engel4, Mariah Pfleger5, Nicole M Phillips3.   

Abstract

Human activities in coastal areas are accelerating ecosystem changes at an unprecedented pace, resulting in habitat loss, hydrological modifications, and predatory species declines. Understanding how these changes potentially cascade across marine and freshwater ecosystems requires knowing how mobile euryhaline species link these seemingly disparate systems. As upper trophic level predators, bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) play a crucial role in marine and freshwater ecosystem health. Telemetry studies in Mobile Bay, Alabama, suggest that bull sharks extensively use the northern portions of the bay, an estuarine-freshwater interface known as the Mobile-Tensaw Delta. To assess whether bull sharks use freshwater habitats in this region, environmental DNA surveys were conducted during the dry summer and wet winter seasons in 2018. In each season, 5 × 1 L water samples were collected at each of 21 sites: five sites in Mobile Bay, six sites in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta, and ten sites throughout the Mobile-Tombigbee and Tensaw-Alabama Rivers. Water samples were vacuum-filtered, DNA extractions were performed on the particulate, and DNA extracts were analyzed with Droplet Digital™ Polymerase Chain Reaction using species-specific primers and an internal probe to amplify a 237-base pair fragment of the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 gene in bull sharks. One water sample collected during the summer in the Alabama River met the criteria for a positive detection, thereby confirming the presence of bull shark DNA. While preliminary, this finding suggests that bull sharks use less-urbanized, riverine habitats up to 120 km upriver during Alabama's dry summer season.
© 2020 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  eDNA; elasmobranch; estuary; habitat use; river

Year:  2020        PMID: 33437412      PMCID: PMC7790648          DOI: 10.1002/ece3.7101

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Evol        ISSN: 2045-7758            Impact factor:   2.912


  10 in total

1.  Ecosystem restoration with teeth: what role for predators?

Authors:  Euan G Ritchie; Bodil Elmhagen; Alistair S Glen; Mike Letnic; Gilbert Ludwig; Robbie A McDonald
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 17.712

Review 2.  Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean.

Authors:  Francesco Ferretti; Boris Worm; Gregory L Britten; Michael R Heithaus; Heike K Lotze
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 9.492

3.  Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas.

Authors:  Heike K Lotze; Hunter S Lenihan; Bruce J Bourque; Roger H Bradbury; Richard G Cooke; Matthew C Kay; Susan M Kidwell; Michael X Kirby; Charles H Peterson; Jeremy B C Jackson
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-06-23       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Distance, flow and PCR inhibition: eDNA dynamics in two headwater streams.

Authors:  Stephen F Jane; Taylor M Wilcox; Kevin S McKelvey; Michael K Young; Michael K Schwartz; Winsor H Lowe; Benjamin H Letcher; Andrew R Whiteley
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 7.090

5.  Multi-tissue stable isotope analysis and acoustic telemetry reveal seasonal variability in the trophic interactions of juvenile bull sharks in a coastal estuary.

Authors:  Philip Matich; Michael R Heithaus
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2013-08-08       Impact factor: 5.091

6.  Distribution and dynamic habitat use of young bull sharks Carcharhinus leucas in a highly stratified northern Gulf of Mexico estuary.

Authors:  J Marcus Drymon; Matthew J Ajemian; Sean P Powers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Water temperature-dependent degradation of environmental DNA and its relation to bacterial abundance.

Authors:  Satsuki Tsuji; Masayuki Ushio; Sho Sakurai; Toshifumi Minamoto; Hiroki Yamanaka
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Environmental DNA method for estimating salamander distribution in headwater streams, and a comparison of water sampling methods.

Authors:  Izumi Katano; Ken Harada; Hideyuki Doi; Rio Souma; Toshifumi Minamoto
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Persistence of environmental DNA in marine systems.

Authors:  Rupert A Collins; Owen S Wangensteen; Eoin J O'Gorman; Stefano Mariani; David W Sims; Martin J Genner
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2018-11-05

10.  Recent pace of change in human impact on the world's ocean.

Authors:  Benjamin S Halpern; Melanie Frazier; Jamie Afflerbach; Julia S Lowndes; Fiorenza Micheli; Casey O'Hara; Courtney Scarborough; Kimberly A Selkoe
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.