Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Effect of environmental DNA sampling resolution in detecting nearshore fish biodiversity compared to capture surveys
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Effect of environmental DNA sampling resolution in detecting nearshore fish biodiversity compared to capture surveys
Do you wish to request the book?
Effect of environmental DNA sampling resolution in detecting nearshore fish biodiversity compared to capture surveys
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Effect of environmental DNA sampling resolution in detecting nearshore fish biodiversity compared to capture surveys
2024
Overview
Sampling and sequencing marine environmental DNA (eDNA) provides a tool that can increase our ability to monitor biodiversity, but movement and mixing of eDNA after release from organisms before collection could affect our inference of species distributions. To assess how conditions at differing spatial scales influence the inferred species richness and compositional turnover, we conducted a paired eDNA metabarcoding and capture (beach seining) survey of fishes on the coast of British Columbia. We found more taxa were typically detected using eDNA compared to beach seining. eDNA identified more taxa with alternative habitat preferences, and this richness difference was greater in areas of high seawater movement, suggesting eDNA has a larger spatial grain influenced by water motion. By contrast, we found that eDNA consistently missed low biomass species present in seining surveys. Spatial turnover of communities surveyed using beach seining differed from that of the eDNA and was better explained by factors that vary at small (10–1000s meters) spatial scales. Specifically, vegetation cover and shoreline exposure explained most species turnover from seining, while eDNA turnover was not explained by those factors and showed a distance decay pattern (a change from 10% to 25% similarity from 2 km to 10 km of distance), suggesting unmeasured environmental variation at larger scales drives its turnover. Our findings indicate that the eDNA sample grain is larger than that of capture surveys. Whereas seining can detect differences in fish distributions at scales of 10s–100s of meters, eDNA can best summarize fish biodiversity at larger scales possibly more relevant to regional biodiversity assessments.
Publisher
PeerJ. Ltd,PeerJ, Inc,PeerJ Inc
