Loading…
Estimation of biodiversity metrics by environmental DNA metabarcoding compared with visual and capture surveys of river fish communities
Information on α‐ (local), β‐ (between habitats), and γ‐ (regional) diversity is fundamental to understanding biodiversity as well as the function and stability of community dynamics. Methods like environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding are currently considered useful to investigate biodiversity. We...
Saved in:
Published in: | Freshwater biology 2021-07, Vol.66 (7), p.1257-1266 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2974-1ea407132203164f17c8a538ab3a5a5aa7c0e1d322814dad9d467038da5edfd03 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2974-1ea407132203164f17c8a538ab3a5a5aa7c0e1d322814dad9d467038da5edfd03 |
container_end_page | 1266 |
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 1257 |
container_title | Freshwater biology |
container_volume | 66 |
creator | Doi, Hideyuki Inui, Ryutei Matsuoka, Shunsuke Akamatsu, Yoshihisa Goto, Masuji Kono, Takanori |
description | Information on α‐ (local), β‐ (between habitats), and γ‐ (regional) diversity is fundamental to understanding biodiversity as well as the function and stability of community dynamics. Methods like environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding are currently considered useful to investigate biodiversity.
We compared the performance of eDNA metabarcoding with visual and capture surveys for estimating α‐ and γ‐diversity of river fish communities, and nestedness and turnover in particular.
In five rivers across west Japan, by comparison to visual/capture surveys, eDNA metabarcoding detected more species in the study sites (i.e. α‐diversity). Consequently, the overall number of species in the region (i.e. γ‐diversity) was higher. In particular, the species found by visual/capture surveys were encompassed by those detected by eDNA metabarcoding.
Estimates of community diversity within rivers differed between survey methods. Although we found that the methods show similar levels of community nestedness and turnover within the rivers, visual/capture surveys showed more distinct community differences from upstream to downstream. Our results suggest that eDNA metabarcoding may be a suitable method for community assemblage analysis, especially for understanding regional community patterns, for fish monitoring in rivers. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/fwb.13714 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2540099975</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2540099975</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2974-1ea407132203164f17c8a538ab3a5a5aa7c0e1d322814dad9d467038da5edfd03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL1OwzAUhS0EEqUw8AaWmBjS2rEdJ2OBFpAqWECMkWM71FXzg-2kyhvw2DiElXuHO5zv3CMdAK4xWuAwy_JYLDDhmJ6AGSYJi2Ia81MwQ4gmEUMcnYML5_YIoZTxeAa-186bSnjT1LApYWEaZXptnfEDrLS3RjpYDFDXvbFNXenaiwN8eFmNoiiElYGvP6FsqlZYreDR-B3sjesCJmoFpWh9ZzV0ne314MYMOwbA0rjdaKu62nij3SU4K8XB6au_Owfvm_Xb_VO0fX18vl9tIxlnnEZYC4o4JnGMCE5oiblMBSOpKIhgYQWXSGMV9BRTJVSmaMIRSZVgWpUKkTm4mf62tvnqtPP5vulsHSLzmFGEsizjLFC3EyVt45zVZd7aUJMdcozyseg8FJ3_Fh3Y5cQezUEP_4P55uNucvwAA4GCOw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2540099975</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Estimation of biodiversity metrics by environmental DNA metabarcoding compared with visual and capture surveys of river fish communities</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><creator>Doi, Hideyuki ; Inui, Ryutei ; Matsuoka, Shunsuke ; Akamatsu, Yoshihisa ; Goto, Masuji ; Kono, Takanori</creator><creatorcontrib>Doi, Hideyuki ; Inui, Ryutei ; Matsuoka, Shunsuke ; Akamatsu, Yoshihisa ; Goto, Masuji ; Kono, Takanori</creatorcontrib><description>Information on α‐ (local), β‐ (between habitats), and γ‐ (regional) diversity is fundamental to understanding biodiversity as well as the function and stability of community dynamics. Methods like environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding are currently considered useful to investigate biodiversity.
We compared the performance of eDNA metabarcoding with visual and capture surveys for estimating α‐ and γ‐diversity of river fish communities, and nestedness and turnover in particular.
In five rivers across west Japan, by comparison to visual/capture surveys, eDNA metabarcoding detected more species in the study sites (i.e. α‐diversity). Consequently, the overall number of species in the region (i.e. γ‐diversity) was higher. In particular, the species found by visual/capture surveys were encompassed by those detected by eDNA metabarcoding.
Estimates of community diversity within rivers differed between survey methods. Although we found that the methods show similar levels of community nestedness and turnover within the rivers, visual/capture surveys showed more distinct community differences from upstream to downstream. Our results suggest that eDNA metabarcoding may be a suitable method for community assemblage analysis, especially for understanding regional community patterns, for fish monitoring in rivers.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0046-5070</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2427</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/fwb.13714</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>alpha and gamma diversity ; Biodiversity ; community ; Community composition ; Deoxyribonucleic acid ; DNA ; Downstream effects ; Dynamic stability ; eDNA ; Environmental DNA ; Environmental monitoring ; Fish ; Methods ; nestedness ; Polls & surveys ; Rivers ; Species ; Species diversity ; Surveying ; Surveys ; turnover</subject><ispartof>Freshwater biology, 2021-07, Vol.66 (7), p.1257-1266</ispartof><rights>2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2974-1ea407132203164f17c8a538ab3a5a5aa7c0e1d322814dad9d467038da5edfd03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2974-1ea407132203164f17c8a538ab3a5a5aa7c0e1d322814dad9d467038da5edfd03</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3723-8800 ; 0000-0002-2701-3982</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Doi, Hideyuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Inui, Ryutei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsuoka, Shunsuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akamatsu, Yoshihisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goto, Masuji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kono, Takanori</creatorcontrib><title>Estimation of biodiversity metrics by environmental DNA metabarcoding compared with visual and capture surveys of river fish communities</title><title>Freshwater biology</title><description>Information on α‐ (local), β‐ (between habitats), and γ‐ (regional) diversity is fundamental to understanding biodiversity as well as the function and stability of community dynamics. Methods like environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding are currently considered useful to investigate biodiversity.
We compared the performance of eDNA metabarcoding with visual and capture surveys for estimating α‐ and γ‐diversity of river fish communities, and nestedness and turnover in particular.
In five rivers across west Japan, by comparison to visual/capture surveys, eDNA metabarcoding detected more species in the study sites (i.e. α‐diversity). Consequently, the overall number of species in the region (i.e. γ‐diversity) was higher. In particular, the species found by visual/capture surveys were encompassed by those detected by eDNA metabarcoding.
Estimates of community diversity within rivers differed between survey methods. Although we found that the methods show similar levels of community nestedness and turnover within the rivers, visual/capture surveys showed more distinct community differences from upstream to downstream. Our results suggest that eDNA metabarcoding may be a suitable method for community assemblage analysis, especially for understanding regional community patterns, for fish monitoring in rivers.</description><subject>alpha and gamma diversity</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>community</subject><subject>Community composition</subject><subject>Deoxyribonucleic acid</subject><subject>DNA</subject><subject>Downstream effects</subject><subject>Dynamic stability</subject><subject>eDNA</subject><subject>Environmental DNA</subject><subject>Environmental monitoring</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>nestedness</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Species diversity</subject><subject>Surveying</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>turnover</subject><issn>0046-5070</issn><issn>1365-2427</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kL1OwzAUhS0EEqUw8AaWmBjS2rEdJ2OBFpAqWECMkWM71FXzg-2kyhvw2DiElXuHO5zv3CMdAK4xWuAwy_JYLDDhmJ6AGSYJi2Ia81MwQ4gmEUMcnYML5_YIoZTxeAa-186bSnjT1LApYWEaZXptnfEDrLS3RjpYDFDXvbFNXenaiwN8eFmNoiiElYGvP6FsqlZYreDR-B3sjesCJmoFpWh9ZzV0ne314MYMOwbA0rjdaKu62nij3SU4K8XB6au_Owfvm_Xb_VO0fX18vl9tIxlnnEZYC4o4JnGMCE5oiblMBSOpKIhgYQWXSGMV9BRTJVSmaMIRSZVgWpUKkTm4mf62tvnqtPP5vulsHSLzmFGEsizjLFC3EyVt45zVZd7aUJMdcozyseg8FJ3_Fh3Y5cQezUEP_4P55uNucvwAA4GCOw</recordid><startdate>202107</startdate><enddate>202107</enddate><creator>Doi, Hideyuki</creator><creator>Inui, Ryutei</creator><creator>Matsuoka, Shunsuke</creator><creator>Akamatsu, Yoshihisa</creator><creator>Goto, Masuji</creator><creator>Kono, Takanori</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3723-8800</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2701-3982</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202107</creationdate><title>Estimation of biodiversity metrics by environmental DNA metabarcoding compared with visual and capture surveys of river fish communities</title><author>Doi, Hideyuki ; Inui, Ryutei ; Matsuoka, Shunsuke ; Akamatsu, Yoshihisa ; Goto, Masuji ; Kono, Takanori</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2974-1ea407132203164f17c8a538ab3a5a5aa7c0e1d322814dad9d467038da5edfd03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>alpha and gamma diversity</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>community</topic><topic>Community composition</topic><topic>Deoxyribonucleic acid</topic><topic>DNA</topic><topic>Downstream effects</topic><topic>Dynamic stability</topic><topic>eDNA</topic><topic>Environmental DNA</topic><topic>Environmental monitoring</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>nestedness</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Species diversity</topic><topic>Surveying</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>turnover</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Doi, Hideyuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Inui, Ryutei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsuoka, Shunsuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akamatsu, Yoshihisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goto, Masuji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kono, Takanori</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><jtitle>Freshwater biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Doi, Hideyuki</au><au>Inui, Ryutei</au><au>Matsuoka, Shunsuke</au><au>Akamatsu, Yoshihisa</au><au>Goto, Masuji</au><au>Kono, Takanori</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Estimation of biodiversity metrics by environmental DNA metabarcoding compared with visual and capture surveys of river fish communities</atitle><jtitle>Freshwater biology</jtitle><date>2021-07</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>66</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1257</spage><epage>1266</epage><pages>1257-1266</pages><issn>0046-5070</issn><eissn>1365-2427</eissn><abstract>Information on α‐ (local), β‐ (between habitats), and γ‐ (regional) diversity is fundamental to understanding biodiversity as well as the function and stability of community dynamics. Methods like environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding are currently considered useful to investigate biodiversity.
We compared the performance of eDNA metabarcoding with visual and capture surveys for estimating α‐ and γ‐diversity of river fish communities, and nestedness and turnover in particular.
In five rivers across west Japan, by comparison to visual/capture surveys, eDNA metabarcoding detected more species in the study sites (i.e. α‐diversity). Consequently, the overall number of species in the region (i.e. γ‐diversity) was higher. In particular, the species found by visual/capture surveys were encompassed by those detected by eDNA metabarcoding.
Estimates of community diversity within rivers differed between survey methods. Although we found that the methods show similar levels of community nestedness and turnover within the rivers, visual/capture surveys showed more distinct community differences from upstream to downstream. Our results suggest that eDNA metabarcoding may be a suitable method for community assemblage analysis, especially for understanding regional community patterns, for fish monitoring in rivers.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/fwb.13714</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3723-8800</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2701-3982</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0046-5070 |
ispartof | Freshwater biology, 2021-07, Vol.66 (7), p.1257-1266 |
issn | 0046-5070 1365-2427 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2540099975 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection |
subjects | alpha and gamma diversity Biodiversity community Community composition Deoxyribonucleic acid DNA Downstream effects Dynamic stability eDNA Environmental DNA Environmental monitoring Fish Methods nestedness Polls & surveys Rivers Species Species diversity Surveying Surveys turnover |
title | Estimation of biodiversity metrics by environmental DNA metabarcoding compared with visual and capture surveys of river fish communities |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T08%3A29%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Estimation%20of%20biodiversity%20metrics%20by%20environmental%20DNA%20metabarcoding%20compared%20with%20visual%20and%20capture%20surveys%20of%20river%20fish%20communities&rft.jtitle=Freshwater%20biology&rft.au=Doi,%20Hideyuki&rft.date=2021-07&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1257&rft.epage=1266&rft.pages=1257-1266&rft.issn=0046-5070&rft.eissn=1365-2427&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/fwb.13714&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2540099975%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2974-1ea407132203164f17c8a538ab3a5a5aa7c0e1d322814dad9d467038da5edfd03%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2540099975&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |