Assessing vertebrate biodiversity in a kelp forest ecosystem using environmental DNA

Molecular Ecology

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 527-541

  Port, Jesse A ^a   O'Donnell, James L ^b   Romero Maraccini, Ofelia C ^a   Leary, Paul R ^a   Litvin, Steven Y ^a   Nickols, Kerry J ^a,d   Yamahara, Kevan M ^c   Kelly, Ryan P ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

biodiversity; eDNA; fish; metabarcoding; monitoring; next generation sequencing

Indexed keywords

RIBOSOME RNA; RNA, RIBOSOMAL, 12S;

ANIMAL; BIODIVERSITY; CALIFORNIA; CLASSIFICATION; DNA BARCODING; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FISH; GENETICS; KELP; MAMMAL; PROCEDURES; VERTEBRATE;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; CALIFORNIA; DNA BARCODING, TAXONOMIC; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FISHES; KELP; MAMMALS; RNA, RIBOSOMAL; VERTEBRATES;

EID: 84957428231     PISSN: 09621083     EISSN: 1365294X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/mec.13481     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Andersen K, Bird KL, Rasmussen M, et al,. (2012) Meta-barcoding of 'dirt' DNA from soil reflects vertebrate biodiversity. Molecular Ecology, 21, 1966-1979.
2. Baldwin CC, Collette BB, Parenti LR, Smith DG, Springer VG, (1996) Methods and Techniques of Underwater Research. Proceedings of the American Academy of Underwater Sciences Scientific Diving Symposium. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, District of Columbia.
3. Barnes MA, Turner CR, Jerde CL, et al,. (2014) Environmental conditions influence eDNA persistence in aquatic systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 1819-1827.
4. Beas-Luna R, Novak M, Carr MH, et al,. (2014) An online database for informing ecological network models: http://kelpforest.ucsc.edu. PLoS One, 9, e109356.
5. Bru D, Martin-Laurent F, Philippot L, (2008) Quantification of the detrimental effect of a single primer-template mismatch by real-time PCR using the 16S rRNA gene as an example. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 74, 1660-1663.
6. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, et al,. (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science, 328, 1164-1168.
7. Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, et al,. (2009) BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics, 10, 421.
8. Champlot S, Berthelot C, Pruvost M, et al,. (2010) An efficient multistrategy DNA decontamination procedure of PCR reagents for hypersensitive PCR applications. PLoS One, 5, e13042.
9. Coissac E, (2012) OligoTag: a program for designing sets of tags for next-generation sequencing of multiplexed samples. Methods in Molecular Biology, 888, 13-31.
10. Dayton PK, (1985) Ecology of kelp communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16, 215-245.
11. De Barba M, Miquel C, Boyer F, et al,. (2014) DNA metabarcoding multiplexing and validation of data accuracy for diet assessment: application to omnivorous diet. Molecular Ecology Resources, 14, 306-323.
12. Deagle BE, Chiaradia A, McInnes J, Jarman SN, (2010) Pyrosequencing faecal DNA to determine diet of little penguins: is what goes in what comes out? Conservation Genetics, 11, 2039-2048.
13. Deiner K, Altermatt F, (2014) Transport distance of invertebrate environmental DNA in a natural river. PLoS One, 9, e88786.
14. Edgar RC, (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics, 26, 2460-2461.
15. Evans NT, Olds BP, Renshaw MA, et al,. (2015) Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources, 16, 29-41.
16. Ficetola GF, Miaud C, Pompanon F, Taberlet P, (2008) Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples. Biology Letters, 4, 423-425.
17. Ficetola GF, Pansu J, Bonin A, et al,. (2015) Replication levels, false presences and the estimation of the presence/absence from eDNA metabarcoding data. Molecular Ecology Resources, 15, 543-556.
18. Foote AD, Thomsen PF, Sveegaard S, et al,. (2012) Investigating the potential use of environmental DNA (eDNA) for genetic monitoring of marine mammals. PLoS One, 7, e41781.
19. Gaylord B, Nickols KJ, Jurgens L, (2012) Roles of transport and mixing processes in kelp forest ecology. Journal of Experimental Biology, 215, 997-1007.
20. Giguet-Covex C, Pansu J, Arnaud F, et al,. (2014) Long livestock farming history and human landscape shaping revealed by lake sediment DNA. Nature Communications, 5, 3211.
21. Goldberg CS, Sepulveda A, Ray A, Baumgardt J, Waits LP, (2013) Environmental DNA as a new method for early detection of New Zealand mudsnails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). Freshwater Science, 32, 792-800.
22. Huson DH, Weber N, (2013) Microbial community analysis using MEGAN. Methods in Enzymology, 531, 465-485.
23. Jerde CL, Mahon AR, (2015) Improving confidence in environmental DNA species detection. Molecular Ecology Resources, 15, 461-463.
24. Jerde CL, Mahon AR, Chadderton WL, Lodge DM, (2011) "Sight-unseen" detection of rare aquatic species using environmental DNA. Conservation Letters, 4, 150-157.
25. Jerde CL, Chadderton WL, Mahon AR, et al,. (2013) Detection of Asian carp DNA as part of a Great Lakes basin-wide surveillance program. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 70, 522-526.
26. Jones JB, (1992) Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed: a review. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 26, 59-67.
27. Kelly RP, Port JA, Yamahara KM, Crowder LB, (2014) Using environmental DNA to census marine fishes in a large mesocosm. PLoS One, 9, e86175.
28. Klymus KE, Richter CA, Chapman DC, Paukert C, (2015) Quantification of eDNA shedding rates from invasive bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis and silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix. Biological Conservation, 183, 77-84.
29. Lahoz-Monfort JJ, Guillera-Arroita G, Tingley R, (2015) Statistical approaches to account for false positive errors in environmental DNA samples. Molecular Ecology Resources, in press. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12486.
30. Laramie MB, Pilliod DS, Goldberg CS, (2015) Characterizing the distribution of an endangered salmonid using environmental DNA analysis. Biological Conservation, 183, 29-37.
31. Love M, Anders S, Huber W, (2014) Differential analysis of count data-the DESeq2 package.
32. Mächler E, Deiner K, Steinmann P, Altermatt F, (2014) Utility of environmental DNA for monitoring rare and indicator macroinvertebrate species. Freshwater Science, 33, 1174-1183.
33. Mahon AR, Nathan LR, Jerde CL, (2014) Meta-genomic surveillance of invasive species in the bait trade. Conservation Genetics Resources, 6, 563-567.
34. Martin M, (2011) Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet. Journal, 17, 10-12.
35. Maruyama A, Nakamura K, Yamanaka H, Kondoh M, Minamoto T, (2014) The release rate of environmental DNA from juvenile and adult fish. PLoS One, 9, e114639.
36. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S, (2014) Waste not, want not: why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLoS Computational Biology, 10, e1003531.
37. Miller DJ, Lea RN, (1972) Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 157, Sacramento, CA, 249 pages.
38. Miya M, Sato Y, Fukunaga T, et al,. (2015) MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. Royal Society Open Science, 2, 150088.
39. Nguyen NH, Smith D, Peay K, Kennedy P, (2015) Parsing ecological signal from noise in next generation amplicon sequencing. New Phytologist, 205, 1389-1393.
40. Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, et al,. (2008) The vegan Package. R package version 2.2-0, URL http://CRAN.R-project.org/.
41. Pilliod DS, Goldberg CS, Arkle RS, Waits LP, (2014) Factors influencing detection of eDNA from a stream-dwelling amphibian. Molecular Ecology Resources, 14, 109-116.
42. Pinol J, Mir G, Gomez-Polo P, Agusti N, (2015) Universal and blocking primer mismatches limit the use of high-throughput DNA sequencing for the quantitative metabarcoding of arthropods. Molecular Ecology Resources, 15, 819-830.
43. Pompanon F, Deagle BE, Symondson WO, et al,. (2012) Who is eating what: diet assessment using next generation sequencing. Molecular Ecology, 21, 1931-1950.
44. Riaz T, Shehzad W, Viari A, et al,. (2011) ecoPrimers: inference of new DNA barcode markers from whole genome sequence analysis. Nucleic Acids Research, 39, e145.
45. Rusch DB, Halpern AL, Sutton G, et al,. (2007) The sorcerer II global ocean sampling expedition: Northwest Atlantic through eastern tropical Pacific. PLoS Biology, 5, e77.
46. Schmidt BR, Kery M, Ursenbacher S, Hyman OJ, Collins JP, (2013) Site occupancy models in the analysis of environmental DNA presence/absence surveys: a case study of an emerging amphibian pathogen. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 646-653.
47. Schmitt EF, Sullivan KM, (1996) Analysis of a volunteer method for collecting fish presence and abundance data in the Florida keys. Bulletin of Marine Science, 59, 404-416.
48. Schmitt EF, Sluka RD, Sullivan-Sealey K, (2002) Evaluating the use of roving diver and transect surveys to assess the coral reef fish assemblage off southeastern Hispaniola. Coral Reefs, 21, 216-223.
49. Schnell IB, Bohmann K, Gilbert MT, (2015) Tag jumps illuminated-reducing sequence-to-sample misidentifications in metabarcoding studies. Molecular Ecology Resources, 15, 1289-1303.
50. Shehzad W, Riaz T, Nawaz MA, et al,. (2012) Carnivore diet analysis based on next-generation sequencing: application to the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) in Pakistan. Molecular Ecology, 21, 1951-1965.
51. Spear SF, Groves JD, Williams LA, Waits LP, (2015) Using environmental DNA methods to improve detectability in a hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) monitoring program. Biological Conservation, 183, 38-45.
52. Stadhouders R, Pas SD, Anber J, et al,. (2010) The effect of primer-template mismatches on the detection and quantification of nucleic acids using the 5′ nuclease assay. Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, 12, 109-117.
53. Steneck RS, Graham MH, Bourque BJ, et al,. (2002) Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environmental Conservation, 29, 436-459.
54. Taberlet P, Coissac E, Hajibabaei M, Rieseberg LH, (2012) Environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology, 21, 1789-1793.
55. Takahara T, Minamoto T, Doi H, (2013) Using environmental DNA to estimate the distribution of an invasive fish species in ponds. PLoS One, 8, e56584.
56. Thomas AC, Jarman SN, Haman KH, Trites AW, Deagle BE, (2014) Improving accuracy of DNA diet estimates using food tissue control materials and an evaluation of proxies for digestion bias. Molecular Ecology, 23, 3706-3718.
57. Thompson AA, Mapstone BD, (1997) Observer effects and training in underwater visual surveys of reef fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 154, 53-63.
58. Thomsen PF, Willerslev E, (2015) Environmental DNA-an emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 183, 4-18.
59. Thomsen PF, Kielgast J, Iversen LL, et al,. (2012a) Detection of a diverse marine fish fauna using environmental DNA from seawater samples. PLoS One, 7, e41732.
60. Thomsen PF, Kielgast J, Iversen LL, et al,. (2012b) Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology, 21, 2565-2573.
61. Turner CR, Uy KL, Everhart RC, (2015) Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water. Biological Conservation, 183, 93-102.
62. Valentini A, Miquel C, Nawaz MA, et al,. (2009) New perspectives in diet analysis based on DNA barcoding and parallel pyrosequencing: the trnL approach. Molecular Ecology Resources, 9, 51-60.
63. Venter JC, Remington K, Heidelberg JF, et al,. (2004) Environmental genome shotgun sequencing of the Sargasso Sea. Science, 304, 66-74.
64. Wheeler QD, Raven PH, Wilson EO, (2004) Taxonomy: impediment or expedient? Science, 303, 285.
65. Zhang JJ, Kobert K, Flouri T, Stamatakis A, (2014) PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics, 30, 614-620.
66. Zhou X, Li Y, Liu S, et al,. (2013) Ultra-deep sequencing enables high-fidelity recovery of biodiversity for bulk arthropod samples without PCR amplification. GigaScience, 2, 4.