Literature DB >> 34262101

Environmental DNA reveals the fine-grained and hierarchical spatial structure of kelp forest fish communities.

Thomas Lamy1,2, Kathleen J Pitz3, Francisco P Chavez3, Christie E Yorke4, Robert J Miller4.   

Abstract

Biodiversity is changing at an accelerating rate at both local and regional scales. Beta diversity, which quantifies species turnover between these two scales, is emerging as a key driver of ecosystem function that can inform spatial conservation. Yet measuring biodiversity remains a major challenge, especially in aquatic ecosystems. Decoding environmental DNA (eDNA) left behind by organisms offers the possibility of detecting species sans direct observation, a Rosetta Stone for biodiversity. While eDNA has proven useful to illuminate diversity in aquatic ecosystems, its utility for measuring beta diversity over spatial scales small enough to be relevant to conservation purposes is poorly known. Here we tested how eDNA performs relative to underwater visual census (UVC) to evaluate beta diversity of marine communities. We paired UVC with 12S eDNA metabarcoding and used a spatially structured hierarchical sampling design to assess key spatial metrics of fish communities on temperate rocky reefs in southern California. eDNA provided a more-detailed picture of the main sources of spatial variation in both taxonomic richness and community turnover, which primarily arose due to strong species filtering within and among rocky reefs. As expected, eDNA detected more taxa at the regional scale (69 vs. 38) which accumulated quickly with space and plateaued at only ~ 11 samples. Conversely, the discovery rate of new taxa was slower with no sign of saturation for UVC. Based on historical records in the region (2000-2018) we found that 6.9 times more UVC samples would be required to detect 50 taxa compared to eDNA. Our results show that eDNA metabarcoding can outperform diver counts to capture the spatial patterns in biodiversity at fine scales with less field effort and more power than traditional methods, supporting the notion that eDNA is a critical scientific tool for detecting biodiversity changes in aquatic ecosystems.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34262101     DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93859-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  23 in total

1.  Intensive agriculture erodes β-diversity at large scales.

Authors:  Daniel S Karp; Andrew J Rominger; Jim Zook; Jai Ranganathan; Paul R Ehrlich; Gretchen C Daily
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 9.492

2.  Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist.

Authors:  Marti J Anderson; Thomas O Crist; Jonathan M Chase; Mark Vellend; Brian D Inouye; Amy L Freestone; Nathan J Sanders; Howard V Cornell; Liza S Comita; Kendi F Davies; Susan P Harrison; Nathan J B Kraft; James C Stegen; Nathan G Swenson
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 9.492

Review 3.  How Should Beta-Diversity Inform Biodiversity Conservation?

Authors:  Jacob B Socolar; James J Gilroy; William E Kunin; David P Edwards
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 17.712

Review 4.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities.

Authors:  Kristy Deiner; Holly M Bik; Elvira Mächler; Mathew Seymour; Anaïs Lacoursière-Roussel; Florian Altermatt; Simon Creer; Iliana Bista; David M Lodge; Natasha de Vere; Michael E Pfrender; Louis Bernatchez
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 6.185

5.  Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding.

Authors:  Pierre Taberlet; Eric Coissac; François Pompanon; Christian Brochmann; Eske Willerslev
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 6.185

6.  Ecosystem biomonitoring with eDNA: metabarcoding across the tree of life in a tropical marine environment.

Authors:  Michael Stat; Megan J Huggett; Rachele Bernasconi; Joseph D DiBattista; Tina E Berry; Stephen J Newman; Euan S Harvey; Michael Bunce
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Environmental DNA reveals tropical shark diversity in contrasting levels of anthropogenic impact.

Authors:  Judith Bakker; Owen S Wangensteen; Demian D Chapman; Germain Boussarie; Dayne Buddo; Tristan L Guttridge; Heidi Hertler; David Mouillot; Laurent Vigliola; Stefano Mariani
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Biomonitoring of marine vertebrates in Monterey Bay using eDNA metabarcoding.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Andruszkiewicz; Hilary A Starks; Francisco P Chavez; Lauren M Sassoubre; Barbara A Block; Alexandria B Boehm
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Reef Fish Survey Techniques: Assessing the Potential for Standardizing Methodologies.

Authors:  Zachary R Caldwell; Brian J Zgliczynski; Gareth J Williams; Stuart A Sandin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Assessing vertebrate biodiversity in a kelp forest ecosystem using environmental DNA.

Authors:  Jesse A Port; James L O'Donnell; Ofelia C Romero-Maraccini; Paul R Leary; Steven Y Litvin; Kerry J Nickols; Kevan M Yamahara; Ryan P Kelly
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 6.185

View more
  2 in total

1.  Comparing eDNA metabarcoding primers for assessing fish communities in a biodiverse estuary.

Authors:  Girish Kumar; Ashley M Reaume; Emily Farrell; Michelle R Gaither
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  eDNA captures depth partitioning in a kelp forest ecosystem.

Authors:  Keira Monuki; Paul H Barber; Zachary Gold
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.