Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
eDNA as a tool for non-invasive monitoring of the fauna of a turbid, well-mixed system, the Elbe estuary in Germany
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?
eDNA as a tool for non-invasive monitoring of the fauna of a turbid, well-mixed system, the Elbe estuary in Germany
Do you wish to request the book?
eDNA as a tool for non-invasive monitoring of the fauna of a turbid, well-mixed system, the Elbe estuary in Germany
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
eDNA as a tool for non-invasive monitoring of the fauna of a turbid, well-mixed system, the Elbe estuary in Germany
2021
Overview
The Elbe is one of the longest European rivers and features a large, turbid and well-mixed estuary, which runs through the inner city of Hamburg. The Elbe has been closely monitored using classical catch techniques in the past. Here we tested a COI-based eDNA approach for assessing the biodiversity within the Elbe. We sampled three stations in the Elbe, included low and high tide events, as well as two adjoining lakes to compare the recovered faunas. To analyze the data, we employed two different pipelines: the automated mBRAVE pipeline utilizing the BOLD database and one including NCBI BLAST. The number of OTUs with species or higher-level identifications were similar between both approaches with 352 OTUs and 355 OTUs for BLAST and mBRAVE, respectively, however, BLAST searches recovered another 942 unidentified metazoan OTUs. Many taxa were well represented; however, fish species were poorly represented, especially in the Elbe estuary samples. This could be a result of the universal COI primers, which also yielded high read numbers for non-metazoan OTUs, and small-bodies taxa like Rotifera, which might have been sampled together with the eDNA. Our results show a strong tidal influence on the recovered taxa. During low tide, downstream stations resembled sites further upstream, but the former showed a very different OTU composition during high tide and early tide. Such differences might be due to varying impacts of upstream-originating eDNA during tide cycles. Such factors need to be considered when routinely employing eDNA for monitoring programs.
Publisher
Public Library of Science,Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subject
