Rachel Hale, Alex Crampton-Platt, Kat Bruce, Cuong Q. Tang, Michael Maguire, Maija K. Marsh
{"title":"Marine sediment infauna-based environmental assessment using metabarcoding identifies potential impact indicator species","authors":"Rachel Hale, Alex Crampton-Platt, Kat Bruce, Cuong Q. Tang, Michael Maguire, Maija K. Marsh","doi":"10.1002/edn3.556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Developing large-scale monitoring strategies for marine habitats with appropriate temporal and spatial resolution is challenging logistically and economically. We compare potential DNA metabarcoding infaunal identification methods with traditional morphological assessment of marine intertidal biodiversity across two protected sites of contrasting anthropogenic impact on the south coast of England. We show that all the methodologies are effective at distinguishing the distinct communities present at each site. While morphological methods provide community abundance and biomass information, data derived from 18S metabarcoding of sediment scrapes showed the strongest discriminations between sites with contrasting anthropogenic pressures. This difference is due to the inclusion of more taxa from a wider spectrum of biodiversity in this dataset. However, 18S OTU abundance was a poor predictor of morphological taxa abundance and biomass. Examination of the presence or absence of taxa at the more or less impacted sites allows us to identify potential indicator taxa for future surveys, such as families in the phyla Ascidiacea, Cnidaria, Nematoda, and Platyhelminthes; taxa which are not traditionally incorporated into morphology-based assessments due to the difficulty and expense of identification. DNA metabarcoding tools provide a more comprehensive snapshot of marine biodiversity compared to morphological surveys, and therefore an opportunity to assess the responses of more organisms to environmental stressors and develop novel metrics for habitat assessment. This could greatly benefit future monitoring programs and the assessment of management impacts in marine habitats.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.556","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental DNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.556","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Developing large-scale monitoring strategies for marine habitats with appropriate temporal and spatial resolution is challenging logistically and economically. We compare potential DNA metabarcoding infaunal identification methods with traditional morphological assessment of marine intertidal biodiversity across two protected sites of contrasting anthropogenic impact on the south coast of England. We show that all the methodologies are effective at distinguishing the distinct communities present at each site. While morphological methods provide community abundance and biomass information, data derived from 18S metabarcoding of sediment scrapes showed the strongest discriminations between sites with contrasting anthropogenic pressures. This difference is due to the inclusion of more taxa from a wider spectrum of biodiversity in this dataset. However, 18S OTU abundance was a poor predictor of morphological taxa abundance and biomass. Examination of the presence or absence of taxa at the more or less impacted sites allows us to identify potential indicator taxa for future surveys, such as families in the phyla Ascidiacea, Cnidaria, Nematoda, and Platyhelminthes; taxa which are not traditionally incorporated into morphology-based assessments due to the difficulty and expense of identification. DNA metabarcoding tools provide a more comprehensive snapshot of marine biodiversity compared to morphological surveys, and therefore an opportunity to assess the responses of more organisms to environmental stressors and develop novel metrics for habitat assessment. This could greatly benefit future monitoring programs and the assessment of management impacts in marine habitats.
为海洋栖息地制定具有适当时间和空间分辨率的大规模监测战略在后勤和经济上都具有挑战性。我们比较了潜在的 DNA 代谢标码底栖生物鉴定方法和传统的形态学评估方法,以评估英格兰南部海岸两个受人类活动影响截然不同的保护区的海洋潮间带生物多样性。结果表明,所有方法都能有效区分每个地点存在的不同群落。形态学方法能提供群落丰度和生物量信息,而沉积物刮片的 18S 代谢编码数据则能在人为压力截然不同的地点之间显示出最强的区分度。造成这种差异的原因是该数据集包含了更多的生物多样性分类群。然而,18S OTU 丰度对形态类群丰度和生物量的预测能力较差。通过研究受影响较大或较小的地点是否存在分类群,我们可以为未来的调查确定潜在的指示性分类群,例如蛛形纲、蛇形纲、线虫纲和扁形动物门中的科属;这些分类群由于鉴定难度大、费用高,传统上不被纳入基于形态学的评估中。与形态学调查相比,DNA 代谢编码工具能更全面地反映海洋生物多样性,因此有机会评估更多生物对环境压力因素的反应,并为生境评估制定新的指标。这对未来的监测计划和评估管理对海洋栖息地的影响大有裨益。