Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding can greatly enhance our understanding of global biodiversity and our ability to detect rare or cryptic species. However, sampling effort must be considered when interpreting results from these surveys. We explored how sampling effort influenced biodiversity patterns and nonindigenous species (NIS) detection in an eDNA metabarcoding survey of four commercial ports. Overall, we captured sequences from 18 metazoan phyla with minimal differences in taxonomic coverage between 18 S and COI primer sets. While community dissimilarity patterns were consistent across primers and sampling effort, richness patterns were not, suggesting that richness estimates are extremely sensitive to primer choice and sampling effort. The survey detected 64 potential NIS, with COI identifying more known NIS from port checklists but 18 S identifying more operational taxonomic units shared between three or more ports that represent un-recorded potential NIS. Overall, we conclude that eDNA metabarcoding surveys can reveal global similarity patterns among ports across a broad array of taxa and can also detect potential NIS in these key habitats. However, richness estimates and species assignments require caution. Based on results of this study, we make several recommendations for port eDNA sampling design and suggest several areas for future research.

Highlights

  • Species assignments can be informative but should be treated with caution given known errors and omissions in sequencing and reference libraries

  • Further research and conversation among practitioners is needed to determine the optimal set of protocols for port eDNA surveys

  • Any potential Nonindigenous Species (NIS) detected with eDNA metabarcoding should be confirmed with traditional surveys or species-specific qPCR or ddPCR surveys

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Species assignments can be informative but should be treated with caution (see Supplementary Dataset S3) given known errors and omissions in sequencing and reference libraries. Any potential NIS detected with eDNA metabarcoding should be confirmed with traditional surveys or species-specific qPCR or ddPCR surveys. Additional species lists for ports (and many other coastal habitats) and more complete and accurate sequence databases would enable better evaluation of eDNA metabarcoding survey accuracies

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call