4.6 Article

Combined use of eDNA metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity

期刊

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 196-205

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13183

关键词

baited remote underwater video systems; elasmobranchs; environmental DNA; environmental genomics; marine management

资金

  1. ARC [LP160100839]
  2. Pawsey Supercomputing Centre
  3. Australian Government
  4. Government of Western Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 (similar to 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.

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