Charlotte Van Driessche , Teun Everts , Sabrina Neyrinck , Io Deflem , Dries Bonte , Rein Brys
{"title":"Reduced sampling intensity through key sampling site selection for optimal characterization of riverine fish communities by eDNA metabarcoding","authors":"Charlotte Van Driessche , Teun Everts , Sabrina Neyrinck , Io Deflem , Dries Bonte , Rein Brys","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Effective conservation management of river systems requires a comprehensive understanding of local and regional biodiversity, necessitating accurate characterization of species communities. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has emerged as a pivotal tool for assessing aquatic organisms, especially fish communities. However, optimal sampling resolution and site positioning to obtain robust fish diversity indices across heterogeneous river systems remain inadequately understood. This study empirically evaluates the optimal number of eDNA samples needed to accurately capture diversity both locally and stream-wide across three distinct river systems, comparing eDNA metabarcoding results to traditional electrofishing data. Habitat and landscape factors were characterized to interpret the localisation of key sampling sites contributing most to the overall species richness. We detected 30 fish species via eDNA metabarcoding, compared to 28 species by electrofishing, with eDNA requiring fewer sampling sites per river system. To reach ≥ 95 % of the estimated species richness, eDNA analyses required between one and nine sites across three river systems spanning ten kilometres each. In the most diverse river, a single eDNA sampling site even achieved a higher species richness (n = 20 species) compared to the nine required sites to reach ≥ 95 % of the estimated species richness via electrofishing (n = 9 species). To account for eDNA particle dilution and degradation over larger distances (>1 km), sampling at both upstream and downstream sites may be crucial, with strategic site selection further refined by factors like adjacent stream inflows, substrate type, and river discharge rate, all of which influence species-specific habitat occupancy. On a smaller scale, the location of key sampling sites only moderately differs within 100-meter transects therewith informing on the precise placement of those sampling sites. Our work highlights the robustness and cost-effectiveness of eDNA analyses for riverine biodiversity assessment, demonstrating strong potential for enhancing various conservation practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11459,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Indicators","volume":"169 ","pages":"Article 112807"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Indicators","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X24012640","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Effective conservation management of river systems requires a comprehensive understanding of local and regional biodiversity, necessitating accurate characterization of species communities. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has emerged as a pivotal tool for assessing aquatic organisms, especially fish communities. However, optimal sampling resolution and site positioning to obtain robust fish diversity indices across heterogeneous river systems remain inadequately understood. This study empirically evaluates the optimal number of eDNA samples needed to accurately capture diversity both locally and stream-wide across three distinct river systems, comparing eDNA metabarcoding results to traditional electrofishing data. Habitat and landscape factors were characterized to interpret the localisation of key sampling sites contributing most to the overall species richness. We detected 30 fish species via eDNA metabarcoding, compared to 28 species by electrofishing, with eDNA requiring fewer sampling sites per river system. To reach ≥ 95 % of the estimated species richness, eDNA analyses required between one and nine sites across three river systems spanning ten kilometres each. In the most diverse river, a single eDNA sampling site even achieved a higher species richness (n = 20 species) compared to the nine required sites to reach ≥ 95 % of the estimated species richness via electrofishing (n = 9 species). To account for eDNA particle dilution and degradation over larger distances (>1 km), sampling at both upstream and downstream sites may be crucial, with strategic site selection further refined by factors like adjacent stream inflows, substrate type, and river discharge rate, all of which influence species-specific habitat occupancy. On a smaller scale, the location of key sampling sites only moderately differs within 100-meter transects therewith informing on the precise placement of those sampling sites. Our work highlights the robustness and cost-effectiveness of eDNA analyses for riverine biodiversity assessment, demonstrating strong potential for enhancing various conservation practices.
期刊介绍:
The ultimate aim of Ecological Indicators is to integrate the monitoring and assessment of ecological and environmental indicators with management practices. The journal provides a forum for the discussion of the applied scientific development and review of traditional indicator approaches as well as for theoretical, modelling and quantitative applications such as index development. Research into the following areas will be published.
• All aspects of ecological and environmental indicators and indices.
• New indicators, and new approaches and methods for indicator development, testing and use.
• Development and modelling of indices, e.g. application of indicator suites across multiple scales and resources.
• Analysis and research of resource, system- and scale-specific indicators.
• Methods for integration of social and other valuation metrics for the production of scientifically rigorous and politically-relevant assessments using indicator-based monitoring and assessment programs.
• How research indicators can be transformed into direct application for management purposes.
• Broader assessment objectives and methods, e.g. biodiversity, biological integrity, and sustainability, through the use of indicators.
• Resource-specific indicators such as landscape, agroecosystems, forests, wetlands, etc.