| Autor: |
Jensen, Mads Reinholdt1,2 (AUTHOR) mads.jensen@uit.no, Agersnap, Sune1 (AUTHOR), Sigsgaard, Eva Egelyng1,3 (AUTHOR), Ávila, Marcelo de Paula1 (AUTHOR), Glenner, Henrik4,5 (AUTHOR), Wisz, Mary S.6 (AUTHOR), Thomsen, Philip Francis1 (AUTHOR) pfthomsen@bio.au.dk |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Ecology & Evolution (20457758). Nov2024, Vol. 14 Issue 11, p1-14. 14p. |
| Abstrakt: |
Benthic macrofauna are important and widely used biological indicators of marine ecosystems as they have limited mobility and therefore integrate the effects of local environmental stressors over time. Recently, environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis has provided a potentially more resource‐efficient approach for benthic biomonitoring than traditional morphology‐based methods. Several studies have compared eDNA with morphology‐based monitoring, but few have compared the two approaches using the exact same sediment cores. In addition, the meiofauna and pelagic organisms obtained as 'bycatch' using eDNA have largely been disregarded from comparisons. Here, we address these shortcomings through comparative invertebrate analyses of six sediment sample replicates from each of four stations in Denmark, using eDNA metabarcoding and morphological identification. Our results revealed large variation between the six replicates for both methods and little overlap in taxon compositions between methods. While the morphological dataset was dominated by molluscs and annelids, the eDNA dataset was dominated by arthropods and annelids. Using community composition data, we found that sampling stations could be distinguished both with eDNA and morphology. Finally, we inferred expected total richness from extrapolated accumulation curves of detected taxa from each method. This indicated that eDNA metabarcoding requires less replication than morphology for maximum coverage of diversity to be reached. However, both methods required high levels of replication, and our results on taxonomic composition add to the evidence that morphological and eDNA‐based methods should preferably be used as complimentary tools for marine bioassessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
GreenFILE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text