Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

eDNA metabarcoding as a biomonitoring tool for marine protected areas

View ORCID ProfileZachary Gold, Joshua Sprague, David J. Kushner, Erick Zerecero, Paul H. Barber
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.20.258889
Zachary Gold
1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California – Los Angeles
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Zachary Gold
  • For correspondence: zack.gold@ucla.edu
Joshua Sprague
2Channel Islands National Park Service
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David J. Kushner
2Channel Islands National Park Service
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erick Zerecero
1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California – Los Angeles
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul H. Barber
1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California – Los Angeles
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Monitoring of marine protected areas (MPAs) is critical for marine ecosystem management, yet current protocols rely on SCUBA-based visual surveys that are costly and time consuming, limiting their scope and effectiveness. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is a promising alternative for marine ecosystem monitoring, but more direct comparisons to visual surveys are needed to understand the strengths and limitations of each approach. This study compares fish communities inside and outside the Scorpion State Marine Reserve off Santa Cruz Island, CA using eDNA metabarcoding and underwater visual census surveys. Results from eDNA captured 76% (19/25) of fish species and 95% (19/20) of fish genera observed during pairwise underwater visual census. Species missed by eDNA were due to the inability of MiFish 12S barcodes to differentiate species of rockfishes (Sebastes, n=4) or low site occupancy rates of crevice-dwelling Lythrypnus gobies. However, eDNA detected an additional 30 fish species not recorded in paired visual surveys, but previously reported from prior visual surveys, highlighting the sensitivity of eDNA. Significant variation in eDNA signatures by location (50m) and site (~1000m) demonstrates the sensitivity of eDNA to address key questions such as community composition inside and outside MPAs. Interestingly, eDNA results recorded higher species richness outside the MPA while visual surveys observed the opposite pattern. This result is likely caused by swamping effects of high fish abundance in MPAs that reduce detection probabilities of pelagic and intertidal taxa. Results demonstrate the utility of eDNA metabarcoding for monitoring marine ecosystems, providing an important complementary tool to visual methods.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted August 20, 2020.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
eDNA metabarcoding as a biomonitoring tool for marine protected areas
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
eDNA metabarcoding as a biomonitoring tool for marine protected areas
Zachary Gold, Joshua Sprague, David J. Kushner, Erick Zerecero, Paul H. Barber
bioRxiv 2020.08.20.258889; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.20.258889
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
eDNA metabarcoding as a biomonitoring tool for marine protected areas
Zachary Gold, Joshua Sprague, David J. Kushner, Erick Zerecero, Paul H. Barber
bioRxiv 2020.08.20.258889; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.20.258889

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Molecular Biology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4384)
  • Biochemistry (9608)
  • Bioengineering (7102)
  • Bioinformatics (24892)
  • Biophysics (12627)
  • Cancer Biology (9970)
  • Cell Biology (14365)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7966)
  • Ecology (12117)
  • Epidemiology (2067)
  • Evolutionary Biology (15999)
  • Genetics (10934)
  • Genomics (14748)
  • Immunology (9879)
  • Microbiology (23696)
  • Molecular Biology (9489)
  • Neuroscience (50916)
  • Paleontology (370)
  • Pathology (1540)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2685)
  • Physiology (4022)
  • Plant Biology (8669)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1511)
  • Synthetic Biology (2399)
  • Systems Biology (6442)
  • Zoology (1346)