eDNA 是评估溪流生态健康状况的有用环境监测工具

Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Environmental DNA Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1002/edn3.596
Alastair M. Suren, Francis J. Burdon, Shaun P. Wilkinson
{"title":"eDNA 是评估溪流生态健康状况的有用环境监测工具","authors":"Alastair M. Suren,&nbsp;Francis J. Burdon,&nbsp;Shaun P. Wilkinson","doi":"10.1002/edn3.596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) is increasingly used in biodiversity assessments, but there remain uncertainties regarding its congruence with data based on traditional approaches involving habitat sampling and morphological-based taxonomy. Using eDNA for biomonitoring has several advantages, including improved processing efficiencies and precision of taxonomic identification. In contrast, traditional biomonitoring is time-consuming and expensive, often limiting the number of sites monitored. Establishing that eDNA-derived metrics are congruent with their traditional equivalents on a national scale would support its wider use in biomonitoring. Our study compared ecosystem health assessments made by traditional biomonitoring techniques to those using eDNA from 53 sites throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. Because eDNA sampling was not done concurrently with benthic sampling at most sites, we used the average community composition at each site based on previous sampling occasions. We also allocated species identified by eDNA to the traditional level of identification to allow comparisons with eDNA data identified to broader taxonomic groups. We assessed similarities between the three datasets and found a high degree of correlation and convergence between biotic indices calculated from the different methods. eDNA did, however, appear to under-represent some taxa, reflecting challenges in matching barcodes with an often-incomplete sequence library. eDNA data did not always perform better in terms of showing the effects of land use on invertebrate community composition, but all datasets produced similar patterns. Multivariate analyses (redundancy analysis and variation partitioning) identified congruent relationships between environmental and spatial variables with the invertebrate community structure described by the three methods. eDNA data replicated the environmental responses and showed the same overall patterns in community composition as the traditionally collected data. We suggest that eDNA biomonitoring can complement traditional methods, and will perform at least as well as traditional data at detecting patterns in invertebrate community composition and ecosystem health at a national scale.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.596","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"eDNA Is a Useful Environmental Monitoring Tool for Assessing Stream Ecological Health\",\"authors\":\"Alastair M. Suren,&nbsp;Francis J. Burdon,&nbsp;Shaun P. Wilkinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/edn3.596\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) is increasingly used in biodiversity assessments, but there remain uncertainties regarding its congruence with data based on traditional approaches involving habitat sampling and morphological-based taxonomy. Using eDNA for biomonitoring has several advantages, including improved processing efficiencies and precision of taxonomic identification. In contrast, traditional biomonitoring is time-consuming and expensive, often limiting the number of sites monitored. Establishing that eDNA-derived metrics are congruent with their traditional equivalents on a national scale would support its wider use in biomonitoring. Our study compared ecosystem health assessments made by traditional biomonitoring techniques to those using eDNA from 53 sites throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. Because eDNA sampling was not done concurrently with benthic sampling at most sites, we used the average community composition at each site based on previous sampling occasions. We also allocated species identified by eDNA to the traditional level of identification to allow comparisons with eDNA data identified to broader taxonomic groups. We assessed similarities between the three datasets and found a high degree of correlation and convergence between biotic indices calculated from the different methods. eDNA did, however, appear to under-represent some taxa, reflecting challenges in matching barcodes with an often-incomplete sequence library. eDNA data did not always perform better in terms of showing the effects of land use on invertebrate community composition, but all datasets produced similar patterns. Multivariate analyses (redundancy analysis and variation partitioning) identified congruent relationships between environmental and spatial variables with the invertebrate community structure described by the three methods. eDNA data replicated the environmental responses and showed the same overall patterns in community composition as the traditionally collected data. We suggest that eDNA biomonitoring can complement traditional methods, and will perform at least as well as traditional data at detecting patterns in invertebrate community composition and ecosystem health at a national scale.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.596\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.596\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental DNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.596","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

摘要

环境 DNA(eDNA)在生物多样性评估中的应用越来越广泛,但其与基于生境取样和形态分类的传统方法得出的数据是否一致仍存在不确定性。使用 eDNA 进行生物监测有几个优点,包括提高处理效率和分类鉴定的精确度。相比之下,传统的生物监测既耗时又昂贵,通常会限制监测点的数量。在全国范围内建立 eDNA 衍生指标与传统指标的一致性将支持其在生物监测中的广泛应用。我们的研究比较了传统生物监测技术与 eDNA 在新西兰奥特亚罗瓦 53 个地点所做的生态系统健康评估。由于大多数地点的 eDNA 采样与底栖采样不是同时进行的,因此我们使用了每个地点根据以往采样情况得出的平均群落组成。我们还将 eDNA 鉴定出的物种分配到传统的鉴定级别,以便与 eDNA 数据鉴定出的更广泛的分类群进行比较。我们评估了三个数据集之间的相似性,发现不同方法计算出的生物指数之间具有高度的相关性和趋同性。不过,eDNA 对某些分类群的代表性似乎不足,这反映出在将条形码与通常不完整的序列库进行匹配时存在挑战。多变量分析(冗余分析和变异分区)确定了环境和空间变量与三种方法描述的无脊椎动物群落结构之间的一致关系,eDNA 数据复制了环境响应,并显示出与传统收集数据相同的群落组成总体模式。我们认为,eDNA 生物监测可作为传统方法的补充,在全国范围内检测无脊椎动物群落组成和生态系统健康模式方面,其表现至少与传统数据相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
eDNA Is a Useful Environmental Monitoring Tool for Assessing Stream Ecological Health

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is increasingly used in biodiversity assessments, but there remain uncertainties regarding its congruence with data based on traditional approaches involving habitat sampling and morphological-based taxonomy. Using eDNA for biomonitoring has several advantages, including improved processing efficiencies and precision of taxonomic identification. In contrast, traditional biomonitoring is time-consuming and expensive, often limiting the number of sites monitored. Establishing that eDNA-derived metrics are congruent with their traditional equivalents on a national scale would support its wider use in biomonitoring. Our study compared ecosystem health assessments made by traditional biomonitoring techniques to those using eDNA from 53 sites throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. Because eDNA sampling was not done concurrently with benthic sampling at most sites, we used the average community composition at each site based on previous sampling occasions. We also allocated species identified by eDNA to the traditional level of identification to allow comparisons with eDNA data identified to broader taxonomic groups. We assessed similarities between the three datasets and found a high degree of correlation and convergence between biotic indices calculated from the different methods. eDNA did, however, appear to under-represent some taxa, reflecting challenges in matching barcodes with an often-incomplete sequence library. eDNA data did not always perform better in terms of showing the effects of land use on invertebrate community composition, but all datasets produced similar patterns. Multivariate analyses (redundancy analysis and variation partitioning) identified congruent relationships between environmental and spatial variables with the invertebrate community structure described by the three methods. eDNA data replicated the environmental responses and showed the same overall patterns in community composition as the traditionally collected data. We suggest that eDNA biomonitoring can complement traditional methods, and will perform at least as well as traditional data at detecting patterns in invertebrate community composition and ecosystem health at a national scale.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental DNA
Environmental DNA Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Bottom Trawling and Multi-Marker eDNA Metabarcoding Surveys Reveal Highly Diverse Vertebrate and Crustacean Communities: A Case Study in an Urbanized Subtropical Estuary Evaluation of a Nanopore Sequencing Strategy on Bacterial Communities From Marine Sediments Current Trends in Biophysical Modeling of eDNA Dynamics for the Detection of Marine Species Validation of Environmental DNA for Estimating Proportional and Absolute Biomass
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1