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,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stat, Michael, John, Jeffrey, DiBattista, Joseph D., Newman, Stephen J., Bunce, Michael, Harvey, Euan S.
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