Loading…
Environmental DNA reveals spatial patterns of fish and plankton diversity at a floating offshore wind farm
In this study, we collected water eDNA from sampling stations at the first full scale floating offshore wind farm (OWF), the Hywind Pilot Park, east of Peterhead, UK, and a nearby reference area. We combined targeted droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) quantification of two commercially important species, A...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Online Access: | Request full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | In this study, we collected water eDNA from sampling stations at the first full scale floating offshore wind farm (OWF), the Hywind Pilot Park, east of Peterhead, UK, and a nearby reference area. We combined targeted droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) quantification of two commercially important species, Atlantic mackerel (Scombrus scombrus) and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), with metabarcoding of fish and plankton communities. The goal of this study was to assess the performance of eDNA data to characterize pelagic communities and its use for environmental monitoring. The metabarcoding recovered 26 fish species including both pelagic and demersal taxa. The plankton data were dominated by dinoflagellates (Karenia) and calanoid copepods. We found that both specific quantification of eDNA from mackerel and herring and eDNA metabarcoding of fish communities were able to reveal spatial patterns: Mackerel was most abundant in the surface across both OWF and reference sites; herring was present at a wider depth range. While ddPCR and metabarcoding data for these two species were broadly congruent, we observed detection/non-detection mismatches for both methods, highlighting the need for robust sampling design. There was no consistent OWF versus reference area pattern in the demersal fraction of fish assemblages. We interpret our findings as representing a snapshot of fish school location around the time of sampling, and do not consider the single timepoint data from this pilot study to be sufficient to attribute any effects to the OWF itself. As a non-invasive tool, we conclude that eDNA has a high potential in future environmental monitoring of OWFs. We recommend further ground-truthing and biomass correlation of eDNA data with catch data and establishing eDNA time series as next steps towards implementation of eDNA in OWF environmental monitoring. |
---|