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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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