Abstract
Monitoring aquatic biodiversity through DNA extracted from environmental samples (eDNA) combined with high-throughput sequencing, commonly referred to as eDNA metabarcoding, is increasing in popularity within the scientific community. However, sampling strategies, laboratory protocols and analytical pipelines can influence the results of eDNA metabarcoding surveys. While the impact of laboratory protocols and analytical pipelines have been extensively studied, the importance of sampling strategies on eDNA metabarcoding surveys has not received the same attention. To avoid underestimating local biodiversity, adequate sampling strategies (i.e. sampling intensity and spatial sampling replication) need to be implemented. This study evaluated the impact of sampling strategies along an altitudinal and biodiversity gradient in the upper section of the Murrumbidgee River (Murray-Darling Basin, Australia). An eDNA metabarcoding survey was used to determine the local fish biodiversity and evaluate the influence of sampling intensity and spatial sampling replication on the biodiversity estimates. The results show that optimal eDNA sampling strategies varied between sites and indicate that river morphology, species richness and species abundance affect the optimal sampling intensity and spatial sampling replication needed to accurately assess the fish biodiversity. While the generality of the patterns will need to be confirmed through future studies, these findings provide a basis to guide future eDNA metabarcoding surveys in river systems.
Highlights
Robust methods for monitoring species biodiversity are the fundamental basis for ecological research and environmental management
The results show that optimal environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling strategies varied between sites and indicate that river morphology, species richness and species abundance affect the optimal sampling intensity and spatial sampling replication needed to accurately assess the fish biodiversity
On two occasions were species detected by the electrofishing surveys and not by the eDNA metabarcoding survey (i.e. Macquaria australasica at the MR03 site and Macquaria ambigua at the MR04 site) (Suppl. material 1)
Summary
Robust methods for monitoring species biodiversity are the fundamental basis for ecological research and environmental management. Like any method, eDNA metabarcoding can suffer from both false positive and false negative detections (Shelton et al 2016, Ficetola et al 2015, Shaw et al 2016). Before this technology can be used as a standard monitoring tool, sampling protocols need to be evaluated and optimal sampling strategies developed. The popularity of eDNA-based monitoring of aquatic biodiversity has increased dramatically since the first published study (Ficetola et al 2008, Rees et al 2014, Deiner et al 2017).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
