Cargando…
A comparison of biomonitoring methodologies for surf zone fish communities
Surf zones are highly dynamic marine ecosystems that are subject to increasing anthropogenic and climatic pressures, posing multiple challenges for biomonitoring. Traditional methods such as seines and hook and line surveys are often labor intensive, taxonomically biased, and can be physically hazar...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10266690/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37314989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260903 |
_version_ | 1785058793053224960 |
---|---|
author | Gold, Zachary Koch, McKenzie Q. Schooler, Nicholas K. Emery, Kyle A. Dugan, Jenifer E. Miller, Robert J. Page, Henry M. Schroeder, Donna M. Hubbard, David M. Madden, Jessica R. Whitaker, Stephen G. Barber, Paul H. |
author_facet | Gold, Zachary Koch, McKenzie Q. Schooler, Nicholas K. Emery, Kyle A. Dugan, Jenifer E. Miller, Robert J. Page, Henry M. Schroeder, Donna M. Hubbard, David M. Madden, Jessica R. Whitaker, Stephen G. Barber, Paul H. |
author_sort | Gold, Zachary |
collection | PubMed |
description | Surf zones are highly dynamic marine ecosystems that are subject to increasing anthropogenic and climatic pressures, posing multiple challenges for biomonitoring. Traditional methods such as seines and hook and line surveys are often labor intensive, taxonomically biased, and can be physically hazardous. Emerging techniques, such as baited remote underwater video (BRUV) and environmental DNA (eDNA) are promising nondestructive tools for assessing marine biodiversity in surf zones of sandy beaches. Here we compare the relative performance of beach seines, BRUV, and eDNA in characterizing community composition of bony (teleost) and cartilaginous (elasmobranch) fishes of surf zones at 18 open coast sandy beaches in southern California. Seine and BRUV surveys captured overlapping, but distinct fish communities with 50% (18/36) of detected species shared. BRUV surveys more frequently detected larger species (e.g. sharks and rays) while seines more frequently detected one of the most abundant species, barred surfperch (Amphistichus argenteus). In contrast, eDNA metabarcoding captured 88.9% (32/36) of all fishes observed in seine and BRUV surveys plus 57 additional species, including 15 that frequent surf zone habitats. On average, eDNA detected over 5 times more species than BRUVs and 8 times more species than seine surveys at a given site. eDNA approaches also showed significantly higher sensitivity than seine and BRUV methods and more consistently detected 31 of the 32 (96.9%) jointly observed species across beaches. The four species detected by BRUV/seines, but not eDNA were only resolved at higher taxonomic ranks (e.g. Embiotocidae surfperches and Sygnathidae pipefishes). In frequent co-detection of species between methods limited comparisons of richness and abundance estimates, highlighting the challenge of comparing biomonitoring approaches. Despite potential for improvement, results overall demonstrate that eDNA can provide a cost-effective tool for long-term surf zone monitoring that complements data from seine and BRUV surveys, allowing more comprehensive surveys of vertebrate diversity in surf zone habitats. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10266690 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102666902023-06-15 A comparison of biomonitoring methodologies for surf zone fish communities Gold, Zachary Koch, McKenzie Q. Schooler, Nicholas K. Emery, Kyle A. Dugan, Jenifer E. Miller, Robert J. Page, Henry M. Schroeder, Donna M. Hubbard, David M. Madden, Jessica R. Whitaker, Stephen G. Barber, Paul H. PLoS One Research Article Surf zones are highly dynamic marine ecosystems that are subject to increasing anthropogenic and climatic pressures, posing multiple challenges for biomonitoring. Traditional methods such as seines and hook and line surveys are often labor intensive, taxonomically biased, and can be physically hazardous. Emerging techniques, such as baited remote underwater video (BRUV) and environmental DNA (eDNA) are promising nondestructive tools for assessing marine biodiversity in surf zones of sandy beaches. Here we compare the relative performance of beach seines, BRUV, and eDNA in characterizing community composition of bony (teleost) and cartilaginous (elasmobranch) fishes of surf zones at 18 open coast sandy beaches in southern California. Seine and BRUV surveys captured overlapping, but distinct fish communities with 50% (18/36) of detected species shared. BRUV surveys more frequently detected larger species (e.g. sharks and rays) while seines more frequently detected one of the most abundant species, barred surfperch (Amphistichus argenteus). In contrast, eDNA metabarcoding captured 88.9% (32/36) of all fishes observed in seine and BRUV surveys plus 57 additional species, including 15 that frequent surf zone habitats. On average, eDNA detected over 5 times more species than BRUVs and 8 times more species than seine surveys at a given site. eDNA approaches also showed significantly higher sensitivity than seine and BRUV methods and more consistently detected 31 of the 32 (96.9%) jointly observed species across beaches. The four species detected by BRUV/seines, but not eDNA were only resolved at higher taxonomic ranks (e.g. Embiotocidae surfperches and Sygnathidae pipefishes). In frequent co-detection of species between methods limited comparisons of richness and abundance estimates, highlighting the challenge of comparing biomonitoring approaches. Despite potential for improvement, results overall demonstrate that eDNA can provide a cost-effective tool for long-term surf zone monitoring that complements data from seine and BRUV surveys, allowing more comprehensive surveys of vertebrate diversity in surf zone habitats. Public Library of Science 2023-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10266690/ /pubmed/37314989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260903 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) public domain dedication. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Gold, Zachary Koch, McKenzie Q. Schooler, Nicholas K. Emery, Kyle A. Dugan, Jenifer E. Miller, Robert J. Page, Henry M. Schroeder, Donna M. Hubbard, David M. Madden, Jessica R. Whitaker, Stephen G. Barber, Paul H. A comparison of biomonitoring methodologies for surf zone fish communities |
title | A comparison of biomonitoring methodologies for surf zone fish communities |
title_full | A comparison of biomonitoring methodologies for surf zone fish communities |
title_fullStr | A comparison of biomonitoring methodologies for surf zone fish communities |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of biomonitoring methodologies for surf zone fish communities |
title_short | A comparison of biomonitoring methodologies for surf zone fish communities |
title_sort | comparison of biomonitoring methodologies for surf zone fish communities |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10266690/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37314989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260903 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT goldzachary acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT kochmckenzieq acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT schoolernicholask acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT emerykylea acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT duganjenifere acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT millerrobertj acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT pagehenrym acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT schroederdonnam acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT hubbarddavidm acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT maddenjessicar acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT whitakerstepheng acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT barberpaulh acomparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT goldzachary comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT kochmckenzieq comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT schoolernicholask comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT emerykylea comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT duganjenifere comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT millerrobertj comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT pagehenrym comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT schroederdonnam comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT hubbarddavidm comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT maddenjessicar comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT whitakerstepheng comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities AT barberpaulh comparisonofbiomonitoringmethodologiesforsurfzonefishcommunities |