环境 DNA 元标码检测捕食者的速度高于电鱼法

Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Eric A. Bonk, Robert H. Hanner, Adrienne J. Bartlett, Gerald R. Tetreault
{"title":"环境 DNA 元标码检测捕食者的速度高于电鱼法","authors":"Eric A. Bonk,&nbsp;Robert H. Hanner,&nbsp;Adrienne J. Bartlett,&nbsp;Gerald R. Tetreault","doi":"10.1002/edn3.70019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There are numerous downsides and risks associated with electrofishing; hence, environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is becoming increasingly common in aquatic ecological studies. Generally, researchers agree that eDNA metabarcoding is more sensitive than electrofishing, and that eDNA metabarcoding is better at detecting rare species. As predatory species tend to be rarer than prey species, eDNA metabarcoding should hypothetically detect more predator species than electrofishing. Instead of supporting the notion that eDNA must replace electrofishing, or that eDNA and electrofishing must display the same results, the current study aims to establish the strengths and weaknesses of eDNA metabarcoding when compared to electrofishing. eDNA metabarcoding and electrofishing data were collected on three sampling dates at four experimental sites. A RV coefficient analysis confirmed that the eDNA metabarcoding data (RV = 0.395, <i>p</i> = 0.057) are statistically different from the electrofishing data. A paired Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed that eDNA data collection techniques detect more predatory species than electrofishing (<i>p</i> = 0.041). When the analysis was conducted for prey species a statistically significant difference did not occur (<i>p</i> = 0.661). Overall, the results of the study suggest that eDNA metabarcoding does not display the same results as electrofishing due to eDNA metabarcoding detecting predatory species at higher rates. The combined use of eDNA alongside electrofishing can help mitigate electrofishing's bias against predatory species, while electrofishing can address reliability concerns associated with eDNA. This collaborative approach ultimately enhances the accuracy of fish community assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70019","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Environmental DNA Metabarcoding Detects Predators at Higher Rates Than Electrofishing\",\"authors\":\"Eric A. Bonk,&nbsp;Robert H. Hanner,&nbsp;Adrienne J. Bartlett,&nbsp;Gerald R. Tetreault\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/edn3.70019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There are numerous downsides and risks associated with electrofishing; hence, environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is becoming increasingly common in aquatic ecological studies. Generally, researchers agree that eDNA metabarcoding is more sensitive than electrofishing, and that eDNA metabarcoding is better at detecting rare species. As predatory species tend to be rarer than prey species, eDNA metabarcoding should hypothetically detect more predator species than electrofishing. Instead of supporting the notion that eDNA must replace electrofishing, or that eDNA and electrofishing must display the same results, the current study aims to establish the strengths and weaknesses of eDNA metabarcoding when compared to electrofishing. eDNA metabarcoding and electrofishing data were collected on three sampling dates at four experimental sites. A RV coefficient analysis confirmed that the eDNA metabarcoding data (RV = 0.395, <i>p</i> = 0.057) are statistically different from the electrofishing data. A paired Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed that eDNA data collection techniques detect more predatory species than electrofishing (<i>p</i> = 0.041). When the analysis was conducted for prey species a statistically significant difference did not occur (<i>p</i> = 0.661). Overall, the results of the study suggest that eDNA metabarcoding does not display the same results as electrofishing due to eDNA metabarcoding detecting predatory species at higher rates. The combined use of eDNA alongside electrofishing can help mitigate electrofishing's bias against predatory species, while electrofishing can address reliability concerns associated with eDNA. This collaborative approach ultimately enhances the accuracy of fish community assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70019\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.70019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental DNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.70019","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

摘要

电鱼有许多缺点和风险,因此环境 DNA(eDNA)代谢标定在水生生态研究中越来越常见。一般来说,研究人员都认为 eDNA 代谢标定比电鱼更灵敏,而且 eDNA 代谢标定更善于检测稀有物种。由于捕食物种往往比猎物物种稀少,因此假设 eDNA 代谢标定比电鱼能检测到更多的捕食物种。本研究并不支持 eDNA 必须取代电鱼或 eDNA 和电鱼必须显示相同结果的观点,而是旨在确定 eDNA 代谢标码与电鱼相比的优缺点。RV 系数分析证实,eDNA 代谢标定数据(RV = 0.395,p = 0.057)与电鱼数据存在统计学差异。配对 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验显示,eDNA 数据采集技术比电鱼技术检测到更多的捕食物种(p = 0.041)。当对猎物物种进行分析时,在统计上没有出现显著差异(p = 0.661)。总体而言,研究结果表明,由于 eDNA 代谢标码检测到捕食性物种的比率较高,因此 eDNA 代谢标码显示的结果与电鱼不同。将 eDNA 与电鱼结合使用有助于减轻电鱼对掠食性物种的偏差,而电鱼则可以解决与 eDNA 相关的可靠性问题。这种合作方法最终会提高鱼类群落评估的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Environmental DNA Metabarcoding Detects Predators at Higher Rates Than Electrofishing

Environmental DNA Metabarcoding Detects Predators at Higher Rates Than Electrofishing

There are numerous downsides and risks associated with electrofishing; hence, environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is becoming increasingly common in aquatic ecological studies. Generally, researchers agree that eDNA metabarcoding is more sensitive than electrofishing, and that eDNA metabarcoding is better at detecting rare species. As predatory species tend to be rarer than prey species, eDNA metabarcoding should hypothetically detect more predator species than electrofishing. Instead of supporting the notion that eDNA must replace electrofishing, or that eDNA and electrofishing must display the same results, the current study aims to establish the strengths and weaknesses of eDNA metabarcoding when compared to electrofishing. eDNA metabarcoding and electrofishing data were collected on three sampling dates at four experimental sites. A RV coefficient analysis confirmed that the eDNA metabarcoding data (RV = 0.395, p = 0.057) are statistically different from the electrofishing data. A paired Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed that eDNA data collection techniques detect more predatory species than electrofishing (p = 0.041). When the analysis was conducted for prey species a statistically significant difference did not occur (p = 0.661). Overall, the results of the study suggest that eDNA metabarcoding does not display the same results as electrofishing due to eDNA metabarcoding detecting predatory species at higher rates. The combined use of eDNA alongside electrofishing can help mitigate electrofishing's bias against predatory species, while electrofishing can address reliability concerns associated with eDNA. This collaborative approach ultimately enhances the accuracy of fish community assessments.

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
Environmental DNA
Environmental DNA Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信