Cargando…
Combined use of eDNA metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity
Monitoring communities of fish is important for the management and sustainability of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Baited remote underwater video systems (BRUVs) are among the most effective nondestructive techniques for sampling bony fishes and elasmobranchs (sharks, rays, and skates). However,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379492/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30004598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13183 |
_version_ | 1783562652666036224 |
---|---|
author | Stat, Michael John, Jeffrey DiBattista, Joseph D. Newman, Stephen J. Bunce, Michael Harvey, Euan S. |
author_facet | Stat, Michael John, Jeffrey DiBattista, Joseph D. Newman, Stephen J. Bunce, Michael Harvey, Euan S. |
author_sort | Stat, Michael |
collection | PubMed |
description | Monitoring communities of fish is important for the management and sustainability of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Baited remote underwater video systems (BRUVs) are among the most effective nondestructive techniques for sampling bony fishes and elasmobranchs (sharks, rays, and skates). However, BRUVs sample visually conspicuous biota; hence, some taxa are undersampled or not recorded at all. We compared the diversity of fishes characterized using BRUVs with diversity detected via environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding. We sampled seawater and captured BRUVs imagery at 48 locales that included reef and seagrass beds inside and outside a marine reserve (Jurien Bay in Western Australia). Eighty‐two fish genera from 13 orders were detected, and the community of fishes described using eDNA and BRUVs combined yielded >30% more generic richness than when either method was used alone. Rather than detecting a homogenous genetic signature, the eDNA assemblages mirrored the BRUVs’ spatial explicitness; differentiation of taxa between seagrass and reef was clear despite the relatively small geographical scale of the study site (∼35 km(2)). Taxa that were not sampled by one approach, due to limitations and biases intrinsic to the method, were often detected with the other. Therefore, using BRUVs and eDNA in concert provides a more holistic view of vertebrate marine communities across habitats. Both methods are noninvasive, which enhances their potential for widespread implementation in the surveillance of marine ecosystems. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7379492 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73794922020-07-24 Combined use of eDNA metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity Stat, Michael John, Jeffrey DiBattista, Joseph D. Newman, Stephen J. Bunce, Michael Harvey, Euan S. Conserv Biol Conservation Methods Monitoring communities of fish is important for the management and sustainability of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Baited remote underwater video systems (BRUVs) are among the most effective nondestructive techniques for sampling bony fishes and elasmobranchs (sharks, rays, and skates). However, BRUVs sample visually conspicuous biota; hence, some taxa are undersampled or not recorded at all. We compared the diversity of fishes characterized using BRUVs with diversity detected via environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding. We sampled seawater and captured BRUVs imagery at 48 locales that included reef and seagrass beds inside and outside a marine reserve (Jurien Bay in Western Australia). Eighty‐two fish genera from 13 orders were detected, and the community of fishes described using eDNA and BRUVs combined yielded >30% more generic richness than when either method was used alone. Rather than detecting a homogenous genetic signature, the eDNA assemblages mirrored the BRUVs’ spatial explicitness; differentiation of taxa between seagrass and reef was clear despite the relatively small geographical scale of the study site (∼35 km(2)). Taxa that were not sampled by one approach, due to limitations and biases intrinsic to the method, were often detected with the other. Therefore, using BRUVs and eDNA in concert provides a more holistic view of vertebrate marine communities across habitats. Both methods are noninvasive, which enhances their potential for widespread implementation in the surveillance of marine ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-09-12 2019-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7379492/ /pubmed/30004598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13183 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Conservation Methods Stat, Michael John, Jeffrey DiBattista, Joseph D. Newman, Stephen J. Bunce, Michael Harvey, Euan S. Combined use of eDNA metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity |
title | Combined use of eDNA metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity |
title_full | Combined use of eDNA metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity |
title_fullStr | Combined use of eDNA metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity |
title_full_unstemmed | Combined use of eDNA metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity |
title_short | Combined use of eDNA metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity |
title_sort | combined use of edna metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity |
topic | Conservation Methods |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379492/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30004598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13183 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT statmichael combineduseofednametabarcodingandvideosurveillancefortheassessmentoffishbiodiversity AT johnjeffrey combineduseofednametabarcodingandvideosurveillancefortheassessmentoffishbiodiversity AT dibattistajosephd combineduseofednametabarcodingandvideosurveillancefortheassessmentoffishbiodiversity AT newmanstephenj combineduseofednametabarcodingandvideosurveillancefortheassessmentoffishbiodiversity AT buncemichael combineduseofednametabarcodingandvideosurveillancefortheassessmentoffishbiodiversity AT harveyeuans combineduseofednametabarcodingandvideosurveillancefortheassessmentoffishbiodiversity |