问题的核心--底栖海洋监测中鉴定方法和生物复制的重要性。

IF 2.3 2区 生物学 Q2 ECOLOGY Ecology and Evolution Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1002/ece3.70556
Mads Reinholdt Jensen, Sune Agersnap, Eva Egelyng Sigsgaard, Marcelo de Paula Ávila, Henrik Glenner, Mary S. Wisz, Philip Francis Thomsen
{"title":"问题的核心--底栖海洋监测中鉴定方法和生物复制的重要性。","authors":"Mads Reinholdt Jensen,&nbsp;Sune Agersnap,&nbsp;Eva Egelyng Sigsgaard,&nbsp;Marcelo de Paula Ávila,&nbsp;Henrik Glenner,&nbsp;Mary S. Wisz,&nbsp;Philip Francis Thomsen","doi":"10.1002/ece3.70556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Benthic macrofauna are important and widely used biological indicators of marine ecosystems as they have limited mobility and therefore integrate the effects of local environmental stressors over time. Recently, environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis has provided a potentially more resource-efficient approach for benthic biomonitoring than traditional morphology-based methods. Several studies have compared eDNA with morphology-based monitoring, but few have compared the two approaches using the exact same sediment cores. In addition, the meiofauna and pelagic organisms obtained as ‘bycatch’ using eDNA have largely been disregarded from comparisons. Here, we address these shortcomings through comparative invertebrate analyses of six sediment sample replicates from each of four stations in Denmark, using eDNA metabarcoding and morphological identification. Our results revealed large variation between the six replicates for both methods and little overlap in taxon compositions between methods. While the morphological dataset was dominated by molluscs and annelids, the eDNA dataset was dominated by arthropods and annelids. Using community composition data, we found that sampling stations could be distinguished both with eDNA and morphology. Finally, we inferred expected total richness from extrapolated accumulation curves of detected taxa from each method. This indicated that eDNA metabarcoding requires less replication than morphology for maximum coverage of diversity to be reached. However, both methods required high levels of replication, and our results on taxonomic composition add to the evidence that morphological and eDNA-based methods should preferably be used as complimentary tools for marine bioassessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":11467,"journal":{"name":"Ecology and Evolution","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11563695/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Core of the Matter—Importance of Identification Method and Biological Replication for Benthic Marine Monitoring\",\"authors\":\"Mads Reinholdt Jensen,&nbsp;Sune Agersnap,&nbsp;Eva Egelyng Sigsgaard,&nbsp;Marcelo de Paula Ávila,&nbsp;Henrik Glenner,&nbsp;Mary S. Wisz,&nbsp;Philip Francis Thomsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ece3.70556\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Benthic macrofauna are important and widely used biological indicators of marine ecosystems as they have limited mobility and therefore integrate the effects of local environmental stressors over time. Recently, environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis has provided a potentially more resource-efficient approach for benthic biomonitoring than traditional morphology-based methods. Several studies have compared eDNA with morphology-based monitoring, but few have compared the two approaches using the exact same sediment cores. In addition, the meiofauna and pelagic organisms obtained as ‘bycatch’ using eDNA have largely been disregarded from comparisons. Here, we address these shortcomings through comparative invertebrate analyses of six sediment sample replicates from each of four stations in Denmark, using eDNA metabarcoding and morphological identification. Our results revealed large variation between the six replicates for both methods and little overlap in taxon compositions between methods. While the morphological dataset was dominated by molluscs and annelids, the eDNA dataset was dominated by arthropods and annelids. Using community composition data, we found that sampling stations could be distinguished both with eDNA and morphology. Finally, we inferred expected total richness from extrapolated accumulation curves of detected taxa from each method. This indicated that eDNA metabarcoding requires less replication than morphology for maximum coverage of diversity to be reached. However, both methods required high levels of replication, and our results on taxonomic composition add to the evidence that morphological and eDNA-based methods should preferably be used as complimentary tools for marine bioassessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology and Evolution\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11563695/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology and Evolution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.70556\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology and Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.70556","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

底栖大型底栖动物是海洋生态系统重要且广泛使用的生物指标,因为它们的流动性有限,因此可以长期综合当地环境压力因素的影响。最近,与传统的基于形态学的方法相比,环境 DNA(eDNA)分析为底栖生物监测提供了一种可能更具资源效率的方法。一些研究将 eDNA 与基于形态学的监测方法进行了比较,但很少有研究使用完全相同的沉积物岩心对这两种方法进行比较。此外,使用 eDNA 作为 "副渔获物 "获得的小型底栖生物和中上层生物在比较中大多被忽略。在此,我们利用 eDNA 代谢编码和形态鉴定,对丹麦四个站点的六个沉积物样本重复本进行了无脊椎动物比较分析,以弥补这些不足。我们的结果表明,这两种方法在六个重复样本之间的差异很大,而且不同方法之间的类群组成几乎没有重叠。形态学数据集以软体动物和无脊椎动物为主,而 eDNA 数据集则以节肢动物和无脊椎动物为主。通过群落组成数据,我们发现 eDNA 和形态学数据都能区分采样站。最后,我们从每种方法检测到的分类群的外推累积曲线中推断出预期的总丰富度。这表明,要达到最大的多样性覆盖率,eDNA 代谢编码所需的重复次数比形态学少。然而,这两种方法都需要较高的重复率,我们在分类组成方面的研究结果进一步证明,基于形态学和 eDNA 的方法最好作为海洋生物评估的辅助工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Core of the Matter—Importance of Identification Method and Biological Replication for Benthic Marine Monitoring

Benthic macrofauna are important and widely used biological indicators of marine ecosystems as they have limited mobility and therefore integrate the effects of local environmental stressors over time. Recently, environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis has provided a potentially more resource-efficient approach for benthic biomonitoring than traditional morphology-based methods. Several studies have compared eDNA with morphology-based monitoring, but few have compared the two approaches using the exact same sediment cores. In addition, the meiofauna and pelagic organisms obtained as ‘bycatch’ using eDNA have largely been disregarded from comparisons. Here, we address these shortcomings through comparative invertebrate analyses of six sediment sample replicates from each of four stations in Denmark, using eDNA metabarcoding and morphological identification. Our results revealed large variation between the six replicates for both methods and little overlap in taxon compositions between methods. While the morphological dataset was dominated by molluscs and annelids, the eDNA dataset was dominated by arthropods and annelids. Using community composition data, we found that sampling stations could be distinguished both with eDNA and morphology. Finally, we inferred expected total richness from extrapolated accumulation curves of detected taxa from each method. This indicated that eDNA metabarcoding requires less replication than morphology for maximum coverage of diversity to be reached. However, both methods required high levels of replication, and our results on taxonomic composition add to the evidence that morphological and eDNA-based methods should preferably be used as complimentary tools for marine bioassessment.

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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
1027
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Ecology and Evolution is the peer reviewed journal for rapid dissemination of research in all areas of ecology, evolution and conservation science. The journal gives priority to quality research reports, theoretical or empirical, that develop our understanding of organisms and their diversity, interactions between them, and the natural environment. Ecology and Evolution gives prompt and equal consideration to papers reporting theoretical, experimental, applied and descriptive work in terrestrial and aquatic environments. The journal will consider submissions across taxa in areas including but not limited to micro and macro ecological and evolutionary processes, characteristics of and interactions between individuals, populations, communities and the environment, physiological responses to environmental change, population genetics and phylogenetics, relatedness and kin selection, life histories, systematics and taxonomy, conservation genetics, extinction, speciation, adaption, behaviour, biodiversity, species abundance, macroecology, population and ecosystem dynamics, and conservation policy.
期刊最新文献
Insights Into the Ecology of a Widespread but Poorly Known Aerial Insectivore and a Theoretical Basis for Range Expansion Following Repeated Vagrancy Events Playback-Aided Surveys and Acoustic Monitoring in the Detection of the Endangered Forest Owlet Athene blewitti The Core of the Matter—Importance of Identification Method and Biological Replication for Benthic Marine Monitoring Transitions Into Freezing Environments Linked With Shifts in Phylogenetic Integration Between Vitaceae Leaf Traits Wild Ungulates and Cattle Have Different Effects on Litter Decomposition as Revealed by Fecal Addition in a Northeast Asian Temperate Forest
×
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