4.6 Article

Next-generation freshwater bioassessment: eDNA metabarcoding with a conserved metazoan primer reveals species-rich and reservoir-specific communities

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 3, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160635

关键词

eDNA; freshwater bioassessment; metabarcoding

资金

  1. National University of Singapore (NUS)
  2. PUB, Singapore's National Water Agency (NUS grant) [R-154-000-619-490, R-154-000-526-490]
  3. South East Asian Biodiversity Genomics Center (NUS grant) [R-154-000-648-646, R-154-000-648-733]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Freshwater habitats are of high conservation value and provide a wide range of ecosystem services. Effective management requires regular monitoring. However, conventional methods based on direct observation or specimen collection are so invasive, expensive and labour-intensive that frequent monitoring is uncommon. Here, we test whether the evaluation of environmental DNA (eDNA) from water based on a simple protocol can be used for assessing biodiversity. We use universal metazoan primers for characterizing water eDNA across horizontal and vertical spatial dimensions in two reservoirs with known species diversity for two key taxa. eDNA obtained directly from 42 samples x 15 ml water (total = 630 ml) per reservoir yielded DNA signatures for more than 500 metazoan species, of which 105 could be identified to species/genus based on DNA barcodes. We show that eDNA can be used to assign each water sample to its reservoir of origin, and that eDNA outperforms conventional survey methods in single-sample richness comparisons, while revealing evidence for hundreds of unknown species that are undetected by conventional bioassessment methods. eDNA also confirms the presence of a recently discovered invasive snail species and provides evidence for the continued survival of a rare native species of goby not sighted in that habitat since 2007. eDNA thus promises to be a useful addition to the bioassessment toolbox for freshwater systems.

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

4.6
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