环境DNA样本如何、是什么、在哪里影响多样性估计和物种检测

Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Anish Kirtane, Leif Howard, Caitlin E. Beaver, Margaret E. Hunter, Gordon Luikart, Kristy Deiner
{"title":"环境DNA样本如何、是什么、在哪里影响多样性估计和物种检测","authors":"Anish Kirtane,&nbsp;Leif Howard,&nbsp;Caitlin E. Beaver,&nbsp;Margaret E. Hunter,&nbsp;Gordon Luikart,&nbsp;Kristy Deiner","doi":"10.1002/edn3.70042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a complex mixture of DNA, varying in particle sizes and distributed heterogeneously in aquatic systems. Optimizing eDNA sampling is crucial for maximizing species detection, particularly in high-risk scenarios like invasive species management. In this study, we compare two eDNA sampling methods - namely tow net and grab sample, where the tow nets process large volumes of water (3500–7000 L) through a 64 μm pore size and the grab samples process 1 L sample at a single point through 0.45–1.2 μm pore size membranes. We compared these methods to ascertain what most influences (1) the detection of invasive species (<i>Dreissena</i> mussels and Burmese pythons) using qPCR or ddPCR and (2) total diversity monitoring of metazoan, protist, and fungi community using a COI marker and plant communities using the ITS marker. Sampling was conducted across a wide geography and diverse aquatic environments in Minnesota and Florida, USA, and Switzerland. The tow net samples had significantly higher eDNA yield compared to grab samples; however, they exhibited equal or lower alpha diversity of OTUs (Operational Taxonomic Units). The two sampling methods measured different beta diversity of communities detected with the COI marker across all three regions, highlighting the impact of the sampling method on the diversity of eDNA captured. In comparison, the beta diversity of plant eDNA was less impacted by the sampling method. We found no clear difference in detection for the invasive species targets based on the eDNA sampling method. These results underscore the need for pilot studies before conducting biodiversity inventory and monitoring, and a need for a greater understanding of not just how much, but also what, eDNA is captured depending on method choice, considering both spatial and particle size heterogeneity.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":"6 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70042","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How, What, and Where You Sample Environmental DNA Affects Diversity Estimates and Species Detection\",\"authors\":\"Anish Kirtane,&nbsp;Leif Howard,&nbsp;Caitlin E. Beaver,&nbsp;Margaret E. Hunter,&nbsp;Gordon Luikart,&nbsp;Kristy Deiner\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/edn3.70042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a complex mixture of DNA, varying in particle sizes and distributed heterogeneously in aquatic systems. Optimizing eDNA sampling is crucial for maximizing species detection, particularly in high-risk scenarios like invasive species management. In this study, we compare two eDNA sampling methods - namely tow net and grab sample, where the tow nets process large volumes of water (3500–7000 L) through a 64 μm pore size and the grab samples process 1 L sample at a single point through 0.45–1.2 μm pore size membranes. We compared these methods to ascertain what most influences (1) the detection of invasive species (<i>Dreissena</i> mussels and Burmese pythons) using qPCR or ddPCR and (2) total diversity monitoring of metazoan, protist, and fungi community using a COI marker and plant communities using the ITS marker. Sampling was conducted across a wide geography and diverse aquatic environments in Minnesota and Florida, USA, and Switzerland. The tow net samples had significantly higher eDNA yield compared to grab samples; however, they exhibited equal or lower alpha diversity of OTUs (Operational Taxonomic Units). The two sampling methods measured different beta diversity of communities detected with the COI marker across all three regions, highlighting the impact of the sampling method on the diversity of eDNA captured. In comparison, the beta diversity of plant eDNA was less impacted by the sampling method. We found no clear difference in detection for the invasive species targets based on the eDNA sampling method. These results underscore the need for pilot studies before conducting biodiversity inventory and monitoring, and a need for a greater understanding of not just how much, but also what, eDNA is captured depending on method choice, considering both spatial and particle size heterogeneity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"volume\":\"6 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70042\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.70042\",\"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/edn3.70042","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

环境 DNA(eDNA)是一种复杂的 DNA 混合物,颗粒大小不一,在水生系统中分布不均。优化 eDNA 采样对于最大限度地检测物种至关重要,尤其是在入侵物种管理等高风险情况下。在这项研究中,我们比较了两种 eDNA 取样方法--即拖网和抓斗取样,其中拖网通过 64 μm 孔径的膜处理大量水(3500-7000 升),而抓斗取样则通过 0.45-1.2 μm 孔径的膜处理单点 1 升样本。我们对这些方法进行了比较,以确定对以下方面影响最大的因素:(1) 使用 qPCR 或 ddPCR 检测入侵物种(德氏贻贝和缅甸蟒);(2) 使用 COI 标记监测元虫、原生动物和真菌群落的总多样性,以及使用 ITS 标记监测植物群落的总多样性。采样工作在美国明尼苏达州、佛罗里达州和瑞士的广阔地域和多样的水生环境中进行。与抓取样本相比,拖网样本的 eDNA 产量明显更高;但是,它们表现出的 OTUs(操作分类单元)α 多样性相同或更低。在所有三个地区,两种取样方法测得的用 COI 标记检测到的群落贝塔多样性各不相同,突出表明了取样方法对所捕获的 eDNA 多样性的影响。相比之下,植物 eDNA 的贝塔多样性受取样方法的影响较小。我们发现,根据 eDNA 采样方法,入侵物种目标的检测结果没有明显差异。这些结果强调了在开展生物多样性清查和监测之前进行试点研究的必要性,以及在考虑空间和颗粒大小异质性的情况下,进一步了解不同取样方法不仅能捕获多少 eDNA,还能捕获哪些 eDNA 的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

How, What, and Where You Sample Environmental DNA Affects Diversity Estimates and Species Detection

How, What, and Where You Sample Environmental DNA Affects Diversity Estimates and Species Detection

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a complex mixture of DNA, varying in particle sizes and distributed heterogeneously in aquatic systems. Optimizing eDNA sampling is crucial for maximizing species detection, particularly in high-risk scenarios like invasive species management. In this study, we compare two eDNA sampling methods - namely tow net and grab sample, where the tow nets process large volumes of water (3500–7000 L) through a 64 μm pore size and the grab samples process 1 L sample at a single point through 0.45–1.2 μm pore size membranes. We compared these methods to ascertain what most influences (1) the detection of invasive species (Dreissena mussels and Burmese pythons) using qPCR or ddPCR and (2) total diversity monitoring of metazoan, protist, and fungi community using a COI marker and plant communities using the ITS marker. Sampling was conducted across a wide geography and diverse aquatic environments in Minnesota and Florida, USA, and Switzerland. The tow net samples had significantly higher eDNA yield compared to grab samples; however, they exhibited equal or lower alpha diversity of OTUs (Operational Taxonomic Units). The two sampling methods measured different beta diversity of communities detected with the COI marker across all three regions, highlighting the impact of the sampling method on the diversity of eDNA captured. In comparison, the beta diversity of plant eDNA was less impacted by the sampling method. We found no clear difference in detection for the invasive species targets based on the eDNA sampling method. These results underscore the need for pilot studies before conducting biodiversity inventory and monitoring, and a need for a greater understanding of not just how much, but also what, eDNA is captured depending on method choice, considering both spatial and particle size heterogeneity.

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