Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding for biodiversity monitoring is a critical technical advance. Both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity information can be detected in riverine water eDNA. However, it remains unverified whether riverine water eDNA can be used to simultaneously monitor aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. Our specific objective was to assess the effectiveness of monitoring aquatic and riparian biodiversity using riverine water eDNA. We proposed that the monitoring effectiveness (the proportion of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity information detected by riverine water eDNA samples) could be approximated by the transportation effectiveness of land-to-river and upstream-to-downstream biodiversity information flow. We conducted a case study in a watershed on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and estimated the effectiveness of using riverine water eDNA to monitor aquatic and riparian biodiversity based on comparing the operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and species assemblages of three taxonomic communities detected in riverine water eDNA samples and riparian soil eDNA samples in spring, summer, and autumn. The aquatic and riparian biodiversity of a watershed on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau could be simultaneously effectively monitored using riverine water eDNA on summer or autumn rainy days. Monitoring bacterial communities was more efficient than monitoring eukaryotic communities. On summer rainy days, 43%-76% of riparian species could be detected in water eDNA samples, 92%-99% of upstream species could be detected in a 1-km downstream eDNA sample, and more than 50% of dead bioinformation (i.e., the bioinformation labeling the biological material without life activity and fertility) could be monitored 4-6 km downstream for eukaryotes and 13-19 km for bacteria. We encourage more studies on the monitoring effectiveness for each taxonomic community in other watersheds with different environmental conditions. We believe that in future ecological research, conservation and management, we could efficiently monitor and assess the aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity by simply using riverine water eDNA samples.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Footnotes
We added new results in this manuscript. The original manuscript was the results on the seasonal variation of monitoring effectiveness of using riverine water eDNA to simultaneously monitoring aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. The new revision added the results on the taxonomic variation of monitoring effectiveness of using riverine water eDNA to simultaneously monitoring aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity.
