Environmental DNA in different media reveals distribution characteristics and assembly mechanisms of fish assemblages in a complex river–lake system
-
Published:2024-08-02
Issue:2
Volume:24
Page:59-70
-
ISSN:1399-1183
-
Container-title:Web Ecology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Web Ecol.
Author:
Shao Yun, Wang Shuping, Wang Pengyuan, Men Shuhui, Qian Miaomiao, Li Aopu, Feng MeipingORCID, Yan ZhenguangORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Capture-based methods are commonly used for biomonitoring fish assemblages in freshwater. The recent advancement in environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding provides a sensitive, cost-effective, and non-intrusive alternative to traditional methods. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this approach in river–lake systems has yet to be assessed, and there is ongoing debate regarding the selection of sampling media. In this study, we investigated fish assemblages based on traditional approaches and the eDNA metabarcoding method by analyzing water and sediment from 30 locations along the Baiyang Lake and its inflow rivers (China). The results showed that 21 species were identified based on traditional methods, and a total of 29 species were detected using eDNA, with 22 species found in river water eDNA, 25 species in lake water eDNA, and 27 species in surface sediment samples. Nine benthic fish species were detected exclusively in sediment. The community composition of rivers and lakes revealed by water eDNA is similar, reflecting the biotic homogenization in this river–lake system. A neutral community model (NCM) analysis based on lake water and river water eDNA showed that fish assemblages were not dominated by random processes (5.3 % and 2.7 % concordance with the neutral model, respectively), while analysis of surface sediment eDNA showed more support for random processes (50.2 %). Temperature was the main environmental factor correlated with water eDNA, while NH3–N and TP were the main factors correlating with sediment eDNA.
Funder
Key Technologies Research and Development Program
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference76 articles.
1. Banerjee, P., Stewart, K., Dey, G., Antognazza, C., Sharma, R., Maity, J., Saha, S., Doi, H., de Vere, N., Chan, M., Lin, P.-Y., Chao, H.-C., and Chen, chien-yen: Environmental DNA analysis as an emerging non-destructive method for plant biodiversity monitoring: a review, AoB PLANTS, 14, plac031, https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plac031, 2022a. 2. Banerjee, P., Stewart, K. A., Dey, G., Sharma, R. K., Maity, J. P., Chan, M. W. Y., Chang, K. P., Chen, T.-H., Hsu, C.-T., and Chen, C.-Y.: When conventional methods fall short: identification of invasive cryptic Golden Apple Snails (Pomacea canaliculata; P. maculata) using environmental DNA, Hydrobiologia, 849, 4241–4257, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-022-04979-6, 2022b. 3. Brown, E. A., Chain, F. J. J., Crease, T. J., MacIsaac, H. J., and Cristescu, M. E.: Divergence thresholds and divergent biodiversity estimates: can metabarcoding reliably describe zooplankton communities?, Ecol. Evol., 5, 2234–2251, https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1485, 2015. 4. Buxton, A. S., Groombridge, J. J., and Griffiths, R. A.: Seasonal variation in environmental DNA detection in sediment and water samples, PLOS ONE, 13, e0191737, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191737, 2018. 5. Chase, J. M. and Myers, J. A.: Disentangling the importance of ecological niches from stochastic processes across scales, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 366, 2351–2363, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0063, 2011.
|
|