大湖地区爬行动物湿地环境DNA元条形码方案优化

Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Olivia M. Ruppert, Jared J. Homola, Jeannette Kanefsky, Alyssa Swinehart, Kim T. Scribner, John D. Robinson
{"title":"大湖地区爬行动物湿地环境DNA元条形码方案优化","authors":"Olivia M. Ruppert,&nbsp;Jared J. Homola,&nbsp;Jeannette Kanefsky,&nbsp;Alyssa Swinehart,&nbsp;Kim T. Scribner,&nbsp;John D. Robinson","doi":"10.1002/edn3.70047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many species of reptiles and amphibians (herpetofauna) rely on wetlands that are being degraded and lost at a high rate. Characterization of herpetofauna diversity in different wetland types may help guide conservation strategies. However, traditional survey methods often involve sampling within small temporal windows, and the gear deployed may be taxonomically biased, thus, they may fail to accurately characterize species presence/absence and diversity. In contrast, environmental (e)DNA metabarcoding has been shown to effectively survey entire aquatic communities and can provide a useful complement to traditional surveys. The objective of this study was to design and optimize eDNA sampling and laboratory protocols for wetland herpetofauna. Protocols evaluated included different water sampling approaches (point versus transect sampling), seasonality of sampling, and choice of metabarcoding marker (mitochondrial 12S versus 16S rDNA). Samples collected from 10 sites across southern Michigan detected 17 amphibian and five reptile species, including four species of conservation concern (<i>Ambystoma texanum</i>, <i>Clemmys guttata</i>, <i>Rana palustris</i>, and <i>Sternotherus odoratus</i>). We observed no difference in the number of species detected between point and transect samples (<i>p</i> = 0.70), but point sampling required less time (<i>p</i> = 0.03) and allowed significantly larger volumes of water to be filtered (<i>p</i> = 1.13e-5). No difference in species richness was observed between the 12S and 16S mitochondrial DNA markers (<i>p</i> = 0.96). However, a greater number of taxa were identifiable at the species level when using the 16S locus. There was also a significant difference in the number of species detected between early and late summer sampling periods (more species detected in the earlier period; <i>p</i> = 6.31e-6), and some species were only found in the early or late sampling period. Sampling during multiple periods to fully characterize species composition, the use of point sampling, and the 16S mtDNA marker for herpetofauna eDNA metabarcoding studies may increase efficiency and reliability of results.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70047","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimization of Wetland Environmental DNA Metabarcoding Protocols for Great Lakes Region Herpetofauna\",\"authors\":\"Olivia M. Ruppert,&nbsp;Jared J. Homola,&nbsp;Jeannette Kanefsky,&nbsp;Alyssa Swinehart,&nbsp;Kim T. Scribner,&nbsp;John D. Robinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/edn3.70047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Many species of reptiles and amphibians (herpetofauna) rely on wetlands that are being degraded and lost at a high rate. Characterization of herpetofauna diversity in different wetland types may help guide conservation strategies. However, traditional survey methods often involve sampling within small temporal windows, and the gear deployed may be taxonomically biased, thus, they may fail to accurately characterize species presence/absence and diversity. In contrast, environmental (e)DNA metabarcoding has been shown to effectively survey entire aquatic communities and can provide a useful complement to traditional surveys. The objective of this study was to design and optimize eDNA sampling and laboratory protocols for wetland herpetofauna. Protocols evaluated included different water sampling approaches (point versus transect sampling), seasonality of sampling, and choice of metabarcoding marker (mitochondrial 12S versus 16S rDNA). Samples collected from 10 sites across southern Michigan detected 17 amphibian and five reptile species, including four species of conservation concern (<i>Ambystoma texanum</i>, <i>Clemmys guttata</i>, <i>Rana palustris</i>, and <i>Sternotherus odoratus</i>). We observed no difference in the number of species detected between point and transect samples (<i>p</i> = 0.70), but point sampling required less time (<i>p</i> = 0.03) and allowed significantly larger volumes of water to be filtered (<i>p</i> = 1.13e-5). No difference in species richness was observed between the 12S and 16S mitochondrial DNA markers (<i>p</i> = 0.96). However, a greater number of taxa were identifiable at the species level when using the 16S locus. There was also a significant difference in the number of species detected between early and late summer sampling periods (more species detected in the earlier period; <i>p</i> = 6.31e-6), and some species were only found in the early or late sampling period. Sampling during multiple periods to fully characterize species composition, the use of point sampling, and the 16S mtDNA marker for herpetofauna eDNA metabarcoding studies may increase efficiency and reliability of results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70047\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental DNA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.70047\",\"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/edn3.70047","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

许多种类的爬行动物和两栖动物(爬行动物群)依赖于正在退化和快速消失的湿地。不同湿地类型的爬行动物多样性特征有助于指导保护策略。然而,传统的调查方法通常涉及在小时间窗口内采样,并且所部署的工具可能存在分类偏差,因此,它们可能无法准确表征物种的存在/缺失和多样性。相比之下,环境DNA元条形码已被证明可以有效地调查整个水生群落,并可以为传统调查提供有用的补充。本研究的目的是设计和优化湿地爬行动物的eDNA采样和实验室方案。评估的方案包括不同的水采样方法(点采样与样条采样)、采样的季节性和元条形码标记的选择(线粒体12S rDNA与16S rDNA)。在密歇根州南部的10个地点采集的样本中,发现了17种两栖动物和5种爬行动物,其中包括4种保护物种(Ambystoma texanum, Clemmys guttata, Rana palustris和Sternotherus odoratus)。我们观察到在点样和样样样品之间检测到的物种数量没有差异(p = 0.70),但点样所需的时间更少(p = 0.03),并且允许过滤的水量显着增加(p = 1.13e-5)。12S和16S线粒体DNA标记的物种丰富度差异无统计学意义(p = 0.96)。然而,利用16S位点在种水平上可识别出更多的分类群。在夏初和夏末采样期间,检测到的物种数量也存在显著差异(早期检测到的物种较多;P = 6.31e-6),部分物种仅在采样前期或后期发现。多期采样以充分表征物种组成,采用点采样和16S mtDNA标记进行爬行动物eDNA元条形码研究可以提高结果的效率和可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Optimization of Wetland Environmental DNA Metabarcoding Protocols for Great Lakes Region Herpetofauna

Optimization of Wetland Environmental DNA Metabarcoding Protocols for Great Lakes Region Herpetofauna

Many species of reptiles and amphibians (herpetofauna) rely on wetlands that are being degraded and lost at a high rate. Characterization of herpetofauna diversity in different wetland types may help guide conservation strategies. However, traditional survey methods often involve sampling within small temporal windows, and the gear deployed may be taxonomically biased, thus, they may fail to accurately characterize species presence/absence and diversity. In contrast, environmental (e)DNA metabarcoding has been shown to effectively survey entire aquatic communities and can provide a useful complement to traditional surveys. The objective of this study was to design and optimize eDNA sampling and laboratory protocols for wetland herpetofauna. Protocols evaluated included different water sampling approaches (point versus transect sampling), seasonality of sampling, and choice of metabarcoding marker (mitochondrial 12S versus 16S rDNA). Samples collected from 10 sites across southern Michigan detected 17 amphibian and five reptile species, including four species of conservation concern (Ambystoma texanum, Clemmys guttata, Rana palustris, and Sternotherus odoratus). We observed no difference in the number of species detected between point and transect samples (p = 0.70), but point sampling required less time (p = 0.03) and allowed significantly larger volumes of water to be filtered (p = 1.13e-5). No difference in species richness was observed between the 12S and 16S mitochondrial DNA markers (p = 0.96). However, a greater number of taxa were identifiable at the species level when using the 16S locus. There was also a significant difference in the number of species detected between early and late summer sampling periods (more species detected in the earlier period; p = 6.31e-6), and some species were only found in the early or late sampling period. Sampling during multiple periods to fully characterize species composition, the use of point sampling, and the 16S mtDNA marker for herpetofauna eDNA metabarcoding studies may increase efficiency and reliability of results.

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