4.7 Article

Phytoplankton community composition in relation to environmental variability in the Urdaibai estuary (SE Bay of Biscay): Microscopy and eDNA metabarcoding

期刊

MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 191, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106175

关键词

Microalgae; Taxonomy; Environmental gradients; Eutrophic waters; Estuaries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phytoplankton monitoring is crucial for understanding aquatic ecosystems worldwide. This study combines microscopy and eDNA metabarcoding to investigate the phytoplankton community in Urdaibai estuary, revealing significant variations in composition under different environmental conditions. Metabarcoding identified additional species not observed with microscopy, while microscopy overcame the quantification limitations of eDNA metabarcoding. A combination of techniques is recommended for comprehensive insight.
Phytoplankton monitoring is essential for the global understanding of aquatic ecosystems. The present research studies the phytoplankton community of the Urdaibai estuary, combining microscopy and eDNA metabarcoding for the first time in the area. The main aims were to describe the phytoplankton community composition in relation to the environmental conditions of the estuary, and to compare the two methods used. Diatoms Minutocellus polymorphus and Chaetoceros tenuissimus dominated the outer estuary, being replaced by Teleaulax acuta (cryptophyte), Kryptoperidinium foliaceum (dinoflagellate) and Cyclotella spp. (diatom) towards the inner area. This change was mainly prompted by salinity and nutrients. Metabarcoding revealed the presence of 223 species that were not observed by microscopy in previous studies in the estuary. However, several characteristic species (e.g., K. foliaceum) were only detected with microscopy. Additionally, microscopy covered the limitations of eDNA metabarcoding concerning quantification. Thus, to give a full insight, a combination of techniques is recommended.

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