4.7 Article

Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) assessment approaches in the North and Baltic Sea: A comparison of environmental DNA analysis versus bottom trawl sampling

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1058354

关键词

Environmental DNA (eDNA); quantitative eDNA analysis; bottom trawl sampling; Gadus morhua; North Sea; Baltic Sea; eDNA modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of this study was to compare a newly developed eDNA approach with bottom trawl fisheries catches for the detection and quantification of Atlantic cod in the North and Baltic Seas. The results showed the potential of eDNA analyses for quantitative assessments of commercial fish stocks in the open ocean, but further comparative analyses are needed to verify its performance under different oceanographic conditions.
The assessment of fish stocks is often dependent on scientific trawl fisheries surveys, which are both invasive and costly. The analysis of environmental DNA (eDNA) from water samples is regarded as a non-invasive and cost-effective alternative, but meaningful performance evaluations are required for a wider application. The goal of this study was to comparatively analyze a newly developed, more sensitive real-time PCR based eDNA approach with bottom trawl fisheries catches to locally detect and quantify Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the North and Baltic Seas. With a species-specificity of the qPCR assay of 100%, a minimal limit of 15 Cytochrome b eDNA copies was determined for the detection of cod. In addition, a Gaussian processing regression proved a significant correlation (95%) between eDNA (copies per L of water) and cod biomass (CPUE/Ha) found by bottom trawling. The results presented here prove the potential of eDNA analyses for quantitative assessments of commercial fish stocks in the open ocean, although additional comparative analyses are needed to demonstrate its performance under different oceanographic conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据