Environmental DNA complements scientific trawling in surveys of marine fish biodiversity

Abstract Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is a method to detect taxa from environmental samples. It is increasingly used for marine biodiversity surveys. As it only requires water collection, eDNA metabarcoding is less invasive than scientific trawling and might be more cost effective. Here, w...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:ICES Journal of Marine Science
Main Authors: Veron, Pierre, Rozanski, Romane, Marques, Virginie, Joost, Stéphane, Deschez, Marie Emilie, Trenkel, Verena M, Lorance, Pascal, Valentini, Alice, Polanco F., Andrea, Pellissier, Loïc, Eme, David, Albouy, Camille
Other Authors: Helyar, Sarah, IFREMER, Conseil Régional des Pays de la Loire, H2020 Environment
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Oxford University Press (OUP) 2023
Subjects:
Northeast Atlantic
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsad139
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article-pdf/80/8/2150/52071092/fsad139.pdf
Description
Summary:Abstract Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is a method to detect taxa from environmental samples. It is increasingly used for marine biodiversity surveys. As it only requires water collection, eDNA metabarcoding is less invasive than scientific trawling and might be more cost effective. Here, we analysed data from both sampling methods applied in the same scientific survey targeting Northeast Atlantic fish in the Bay of Biscay. We compared the methods regarding the distribution of taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity. We found that eDNA captured more taxonomic and phylogenetic richness than bottom trawling and more functional richness at the local scale. eDNA was less selective than trawling and detected species in local communities spanning larger phylogenetic and functional breadths, especially as it detected large pelagic species that escaped the trawl, even though trawling detected more flat fish. eDNA indicated differences in fish community composition that were comparable to those based on trawling. However, consistency between abundance estimates provided by eDNA metabarcoding and trawl catches was low, even after accounting for allometric scaling in eDNA production. We conclude that eDNA metabarcoding is a promising method that can complement scientific trawling for multi-component biodiversity monitoring based on presence/absence, but not yet for abundance.

Similar Items