Cargando…

Plant DNA metabarcoding of lake sediments: How does it represent the contemporary vegetation

Metabarcoding of lake sediments have been shown to reveal current and past biodiversity, but little is known about the degree to which taxa growing in the vegetation are represented in environmental DNA (eDNA) records. We analysed composition of lake and catchment vegetation and vascular plant eDNA...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alsos, Inger Greve, Lammers, Youri, Yoccoz, Nigel Giles, Jørgensen, Tina, Sjögren, Per, Gielly, Ludovic, Edwards, Mary E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5903670/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29664954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195403
_version_ 1783314974045634560
author Alsos, Inger Greve
Lammers, Youri
Yoccoz, Nigel Giles
Jørgensen, Tina
Sjögren, Per
Gielly, Ludovic
Edwards, Mary E.
author_facet Alsos, Inger Greve
Lammers, Youri
Yoccoz, Nigel Giles
Jørgensen, Tina
Sjögren, Per
Gielly, Ludovic
Edwards, Mary E.
author_sort Alsos, Inger Greve
collection PubMed
description Metabarcoding of lake sediments have been shown to reveal current and past biodiversity, but little is known about the degree to which taxa growing in the vegetation are represented in environmental DNA (eDNA) records. We analysed composition of lake and catchment vegetation and vascular plant eDNA at 11 lakes in northern Norway. Out of 489 records of taxa growing within 2 m from the lake shore, 17–49% (mean 31%) of the identifiable taxa recorded were detected with eDNA. Of the 217 eDNA records of 47 plant taxa in the 11 lakes, 73% and 12% matched taxa recorded in vegetation surveys within 2 m and up to about 50 m away from the lakeshore, respectively, whereas 16% were not recorded in the vegetation surveys of the same lake. The latter include taxa likely overlooked in the vegetation surveys or growing outside the survey area. The percentages detected were 61, 47, 25, and 15 for dominant, common, scattered, and rare taxa, respectively. Similar numbers for aquatic plants were 88, 88, 33 and 62%, respectively. Detection rate and taxonomic resolution varied among plant families and functional groups with good detection of e.g. Ericaceae, Roseaceae, deciduous trees, ferns, club mosses and aquatics. The representation of terrestrial taxa in eDNA depends on both their distance from the sampling site and their abundance and is sufficient for recording vegetation types. For aquatic vegetation, eDNA may be comparable with, or even superior to, in-lake vegetation surveys and may therefore be used as an tool for biomonitoring. For reconstruction of terrestrial vegetation, technical improvements and more intensive sampling is needed to detect a higher proportion of rare taxa although DNA of some taxa may never reach the lake sediments due to taphonomical constrains. Nevertheless, eDNA performs similar to conventional methods of pollen and macrofossil analyses and may therefore be an important tool for reconstruction of past vegetation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5903670
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59036702018-04-27 Plant DNA metabarcoding of lake sediments: How does it represent the contemporary vegetation Alsos, Inger Greve Lammers, Youri Yoccoz, Nigel Giles Jørgensen, Tina Sjögren, Per Gielly, Ludovic Edwards, Mary E. PLoS One Research Article Metabarcoding of lake sediments have been shown to reveal current and past biodiversity, but little is known about the degree to which taxa growing in the vegetation are represented in environmental DNA (eDNA) records. We analysed composition of lake and catchment vegetation and vascular plant eDNA at 11 lakes in northern Norway. Out of 489 records of taxa growing within 2 m from the lake shore, 17–49% (mean 31%) of the identifiable taxa recorded were detected with eDNA. Of the 217 eDNA records of 47 plant taxa in the 11 lakes, 73% and 12% matched taxa recorded in vegetation surveys within 2 m and up to about 50 m away from the lakeshore, respectively, whereas 16% were not recorded in the vegetation surveys of the same lake. The latter include taxa likely overlooked in the vegetation surveys or growing outside the survey area. The percentages detected were 61, 47, 25, and 15 for dominant, common, scattered, and rare taxa, respectively. Similar numbers for aquatic plants were 88, 88, 33 and 62%, respectively. Detection rate and taxonomic resolution varied among plant families and functional groups with good detection of e.g. Ericaceae, Roseaceae, deciduous trees, ferns, club mosses and aquatics. The representation of terrestrial taxa in eDNA depends on both their distance from the sampling site and their abundance and is sufficient for recording vegetation types. For aquatic vegetation, eDNA may be comparable with, or even superior to, in-lake vegetation surveys and may therefore be used as an tool for biomonitoring. For reconstruction of terrestrial vegetation, technical improvements and more intensive sampling is needed to detect a higher proportion of rare taxa although DNA of some taxa may never reach the lake sediments due to taphonomical constrains. Nevertheless, eDNA performs similar to conventional methods of pollen and macrofossil analyses and may therefore be an important tool for reconstruction of past vegetation. Public Library of Science 2018-04-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5903670/ /pubmed/29664954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195403 Text en © 2018 Alsos et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Alsos, Inger Greve
Lammers, Youri
Yoccoz, Nigel Giles
Jørgensen, Tina
Sjögren, Per
Gielly, Ludovic
Edwards, Mary E.
Plant DNA metabarcoding of lake sediments: How does it represent the contemporary vegetation
title Plant DNA metabarcoding of lake sediments: How does it represent the contemporary vegetation
title_full Plant DNA metabarcoding of lake sediments: How does it represent the contemporary vegetation
title_fullStr Plant DNA metabarcoding of lake sediments: How does it represent the contemporary vegetation
title_full_unstemmed Plant DNA metabarcoding of lake sediments: How does it represent the contemporary vegetation
title_short Plant DNA metabarcoding of lake sediments: How does it represent the contemporary vegetation
title_sort plant dna metabarcoding of lake sediments: how does it represent the contemporary vegetation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5903670/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29664954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195403
work_keys_str_mv AT alsosingergreve plantdnametabarcodingoflakesedimentshowdoesitrepresentthecontemporaryvegetation
AT lammersyouri plantdnametabarcodingoflakesedimentshowdoesitrepresentthecontemporaryvegetation
AT yoccoznigelgiles plantdnametabarcodingoflakesedimentshowdoesitrepresentthecontemporaryvegetation
AT jørgensentina plantdnametabarcodingoflakesedimentshowdoesitrepresentthecontemporaryvegetation
AT sjogrenper plantdnametabarcodingoflakesedimentshowdoesitrepresentthecontemporaryvegetation
AT giellyludovic plantdnametabarcodingoflakesedimentshowdoesitrepresentthecontemporaryvegetation
AT edwardsmarye plantdnametabarcodingoflakesedimentshowdoesitrepresentthecontemporaryvegetation