Capture—Incubate—Release: An Animal-Friendly Approach to Assess Local Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Species Diversity Through Environmental DNA Metabarcoding
Mandy Sander, Arne J. Beermann, Dominik Buchner, Martina Weiss, Marie-Thérése Werner, Florian Leese
{"title":"Capture—Incubate—Release: An Animal-Friendly Approach to Assess Local Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Species Diversity Through Environmental DNA Metabarcoding","authors":"Mandy Sander, Arne J. Beermann, Dominik Buchner, Martina Weiss, Marie-Thérése Werner, Florian Leese","doi":"10.1002/edn3.70112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Metabarcoding of environmental DNA (eDNA) from water samples has become an important tool for aquatic biodiversity assessment because it is minimally invasive, time-efficient, and generates comprehensive taxa lists. Nevertheless, species lists differ noticeably from those obtained via bulk metabarcoding of the local benthic community because of eDNA traces transported in the water column. However, it is important for several assessments to capture local biodiversity signals. Our goal was to test whether we can combine the advantages of both methods, that is, obtaining a local signal and being minimally invasive. Therefore, our developed method includes capturing local benthic invertebrates, incubating them in a water container for eDNA enrichment and analysis, and releasing them back to their habitat. We first quantified eDNA release over time for 10 invertebrate species in a laboratory setting using qPCR. We found that a 5-min incubation is sufficient to successfully detect 50% of the replicates for six of the 10 species. Three of the species showed a significant increase in eDNA molecules over time. However, the experiment showed a species-specific eDNA release pattern that was not directly linked to body sclerotization nor biomass. As a second experiment, we sampled bulk samples at three field sites and incubated the bulk samples for 0, 20, 40, and 80 min in containers filled with stream water to compare taxa lists obtained via metabarcoding of bulk and the enriched eDNA samples. Our results showed a much higher overlap between bulk and enriched eDNA metabarcoding (55%–60%) in comparison to reported overlaps between bulk and stream eDNA metabarcoding from other studies (often < 20%). This overlap did not change with incubation time. Thus, our study demonstrates that it is possible to detect most locally occurring species via eDNA metabarcoding after shortly incubating them in water. Therefore, this approach has great potential for point-sample eDNA analysis of macroinvertebrates without compromising animal welfare.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":"7 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70112","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental DNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.70112","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
Abstract
Metabarcoding of environmental DNA (eDNA) from water samples has become an important tool for aquatic biodiversity assessment because it is minimally invasive, time-efficient, and generates comprehensive taxa lists. Nevertheless, species lists differ noticeably from those obtained via bulk metabarcoding of the local benthic community because of eDNA traces transported in the water column. However, it is important for several assessments to capture local biodiversity signals. Our goal was to test whether we can combine the advantages of both methods, that is, obtaining a local signal and being minimally invasive. Therefore, our developed method includes capturing local benthic invertebrates, incubating them in a water container for eDNA enrichment and analysis, and releasing them back to their habitat. We first quantified eDNA release over time for 10 invertebrate species in a laboratory setting using qPCR. We found that a 5-min incubation is sufficient to successfully detect 50% of the replicates for six of the 10 species. Three of the species showed a significant increase in eDNA molecules over time. However, the experiment showed a species-specific eDNA release pattern that was not directly linked to body sclerotization nor biomass. As a second experiment, we sampled bulk samples at three field sites and incubated the bulk samples for 0, 20, 40, and 80 min in containers filled with stream water to compare taxa lists obtained via metabarcoding of bulk and the enriched eDNA samples. Our results showed a much higher overlap between bulk and enriched eDNA metabarcoding (55%–60%) in comparison to reported overlaps between bulk and stream eDNA metabarcoding from other studies (often < 20%). This overlap did not change with incubation time. Thus, our study demonstrates that it is possible to detect most locally occurring species via eDNA metabarcoding after shortly incubating them in water. Therefore, this approach has great potential for point-sample eDNA analysis of macroinvertebrates without compromising animal welfare.
水样环境DNA元条形码(Metabarcoding of environmental DNA, eDNA)具有微创、省时、生成完整的分类群等优点,已成为水生生物多样性评价的重要工具。然而,由于在水柱中运输的eDNA痕迹,物种列表与通过对当地底栖生物群落的大量元条形码获得的物种列表明显不同。然而,对一些评估来说,捕捉当地生物多样性信号是很重要的。我们的目标是测试我们是否可以结合两种方法的优点,即获得局部信号和微创。因此,我们开发的方法包括捕获当地的底栖无脊椎动物,将它们培养在水容器中进行eDNA富集和分析,然后将它们释放回栖息地。我们首先在实验室环境中使用qPCR量化了10种无脊椎动物的eDNA随时间的释放。我们发现,5分钟的孵育足以成功检测出10个物种中6个物种50%的重复。随着时间的推移,其中三个物种的eDNA分子显著增加。然而,该实验显示了一种物种特异性的eDNA释放模式,与身体硬化和生物量没有直接联系。作为第二个实验,我们在三个现场取样了大量样本,并在装满水流的容器中孵育了大量样本0,20,40和80分钟,以比较通过对大量样本和富集的eDNA样本进行元条形码编码获得的分类群列表。我们的研究结果显示,与其他研究中报道的批量和流式eDNA元条形码之间的重叠(通常为20%)相比,批量和富集eDNA元条形码之间的重叠(55%-60%)要高得多。这种重叠不随孵育时间而改变。因此,我们的研究表明,在水中孵育后,通过eDNA元条形码可以检测大多数本地发生的物种。因此,这种方法在不影响动物福利的情况下对大型无脊椎动物进行点样本eDNA分析具有很大的潜力。