Spatio-temporal variability of eDNA signal and its implication for fish monitoring in lakes.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
08
03
2022
accepted:
24
07
2022
entrez:
12
8
2022
pubmed:
13
8
2022
medline:
17
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is revolutionizing the monitoring of aquatic biodiversity. The use of eDNA has the potential to enable non-invasive, cost-effective, time-efficient and high-sensitivity monitoring of fish assemblages. Although the capacity of eDNA metabarcoding to describe fish assemblages is recognised, research efforts are still needed to better assess the spatial and temporal variability of the eDNA signal and to ultimately design an optimal sampling strategy for eDNA monitoring. In this context, we sampled three different lakes (a dam reservoir, a shallow eutrophic lake and a deep oligotrophic lake) every 6 weeks for 1 year. We performed four types of sampling for each lake (integrative sampling of sub-surface water along transects on the left shore, the right shore and above the deepest zone, and point sampling in deeper layers near the lake bottom) to explore the spatial variability of the eDNA signal at the lake scale over a period of 1 year. A metabarcoding approach was applied to analyse the 92 eDNA samples in order to obtain fish species inventories which were compared with traditional fish monitoring methods (standardized gillnet samplings). Several species known to be present in these lakes were only detected by eDNA, confirming the higher sensitivity of this technique in comparison with gillnetting. The eDNA signal varied spatially, with shoreline samples being richer in species than the other samples. Furthermore, deep-water samplings appeared to be non-relevant for regularly mixed lakes, where the eDNA signal was homogeneously distributed. These results also demonstrate a clear temporal variability of the eDNA signal that seems to be related to species phenology, with most of the species detected in spring during the spawning period on shores, but also a peak of detection in winter for salmonid and coregonid species during their reproduction period. These results contribute to our understanding of the spatio-temporal distribution of eDNA in lakes and allow us to provide methodological recommendations regarding where and when to sample eDNA for fish monitoring in lakes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35960745
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272660
pii: PONE-D-22-05624
pmc: PMC9374266
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA, Environmental
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.20173217']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0272660Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Teleo primers and the use of the amplified fragment for identifying fish species from environmental samples are patented by the CNRS and the Université Grenoble Alpes. This patent only restricts commercial applications and has no implications for the use of this method by academic researchers. SPYGEN owns a licence for this patent. A. H., T. D., P. J. and A.V. are research scientists at a private company specialising in the use of eDNA for species detection.
Références
Mol Ecol Resour. 2015 Nov;15(6):1289-303
pubmed: 25740652
Ecol Evol. 2018 Jun 11;8(13):6714-6727
pubmed: 30220992
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 05;9(12):e114639
pubmed: 25479160
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 17;9(11):e113346
pubmed: 25402206
J Exp Biol. 2021 Apr 1;224(7):
pubmed: 33658242
Nat Commun. 2017 Jan 18;8:14087
pubmed: 28098255
Mol Ecol Resour. 2016 Jan;16(1):176-82
pubmed: 25959493
Mol Ecol. 2021 Jul;30(13):3083-3096
pubmed: 32888228
Mol Ecol. 2012 Apr;21(8):1816-20
pubmed: 22300434
Mol Ecol. 2012 Apr;21(8):1789-93
pubmed: 22486819
Proc Biol Sci. 2019 Nov 20;286(1915):20191409
pubmed: 31744434
BMC Genomics. 2010 Jul 16;11:434
pubmed: 20637073
J Fish Biol. 2021 Feb;98(2):387-398
pubmed: 31674010
Genes (Basel). 2020 Mar 11;11(3):
pubmed: 32168762
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 11;9(2):e88786
pubmed: 24523940
J Appl Ecol. 2016 Jun;53(3):722-732
pubmed: 27773942
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 30;11(6):e0157366
pubmed: 27359116
Curr Biol. 2022 Feb 7;32(3):693-700.e5
pubmed: 34995488
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22746
pubmed: 21818382
Mol Ecol. 2016 Jul;25(13):3101-19
pubmed: 27095076
Curr Biol. 2022 Feb 7;32(3):701-707.e5
pubmed: 34995490
Water Res. 2018 Jul 1;138:192-205
pubmed: 29602086
Mol Ecol. 2016 Feb;25(4):929-42
pubmed: 26479867
Mol Ecol Resour. 2021 Jul;21(5):1558-1574
pubmed: 33683812
Sci Total Environ. 2021 Feb 10;755(Pt 2):142622
pubmed: 33059148
J Fish Biol. 2021 Feb;98(2):399-414
pubmed: 32154579
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 02;11(3):e0149786
pubmed: 26933889
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 10;9(11):e112611
pubmed: 25383965
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 19;13(1):e0191737
pubmed: 29352294
Nature. 2010 Sep 30;467(7315):555-61
pubmed: 20882010
Sci Rep. 2018 Jul 10;8(1):10361
pubmed: 29991759
Mol Ecol. 2012 Apr;21(8):2045-50
pubmed: 22486824
Mol Ecol. 2021 Jul;30(13):3057-3067
pubmed: 32608023
Genome. 2019 Mar;62(3):v-viii
pubmed: 30998119
Ecol Evol. 2020 May 06;10(12):5354-5367
pubmed: 32607158