Assessing the utility of marine filter feeders for environmental DNA (eDNA) biodiversity monitoring.
ethanol eDNA extraction
filter-feeding organisms
marine biodiversity monitoring
metabarcoding
passive filtration
vertical spatial resolution
Journal
Molecular ecology resources
ISSN: 1755-0998
Titre abrégé: Mol Ecol Resour
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101465604
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2023
May 2023
Historique:
revised:
06
11
2022
received:
08
04
2022
accepted:
22
12
2022
medline:
6
4
2023
pubmed:
5
1
2023
entrez:
4
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Aquatic environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys are transforming how marine ecosystems are monitored. The time-consuming preprocessing step of active filtration, however, remains a bottleneck. Hence, new approaches that eliminate the need for active filtration are required. Filter-feeding invertebrates have been proven to collect eDNA, but side-by-side comparative studies to investigate the similarity between aquatic and filter-feeder eDNA signals are essential. Here, we investigated the differences among four eDNA sources (water; bivalve gill-tissue; sponges; and ethanol in which filter-feeding organisms were stored) along a vertically stratified transect in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand using three metabarcoding primer sets targeting fish and vertebrates. Combined, eDNA sources detected 59 vertebrates, while concurrent diver surveys observed eight fish species. There were no significant differences in alpha and beta diversity between water and sponge eDNA and both sources were highly correlated. Vertebrate eDNA was successfully extracted from the ethanol in which sponges were stored, although a reduced number of species were detected. Bivalve gill-tissue dissections, on the other hand, failed to reliably detect eDNA. Overall, our results show that vertebrate eDNA signals obtained from water samples and marine sponges are highly concordant. The strong similarity in eDNA signals demonstrates the potential of marine sponges as an additional tool for eDNA-based marine biodiversity surveys, by enabling the incorporation of larger sample numbers in eDNA surveys, reducing plastic waste, simplifying sample collection, and as a cost-efficient alternative. However, we note the importance to not detrimentally impact marine communities by, for example, nonlethal subsampling, specimen cloning, or using bycatch specimens.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36598115
doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.13754
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA, Environmental
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
771-786Subventions
Organisme : University of Otago Research Grant
ID : UORG2020: #3541
Informations de copyright
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Afzali, S. F., Bourdages, H., Laporte, M., Mérot, C., Normandeau, E., Audet, C., & Bernatchez, L. (2020). Comparing environmental metabarcoding and trawling survey of demersal fish communities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Environmental DNA, 3(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.111
Ashby, R. (2019). The development and implementation of genomic tools for the New Zealand Greenshell Mussel industry. (Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy). University of Otago. http://hdl.handle.net/10523/9791
Ayling, T. (1987). Collins guide to the sea fishes of New Zealand / by Tony Ayling; with 48 colour plates by Geoffrey J. cox and 475 line drawings by the author. Collins.
Barker, M. F., & Russell, M. P. (2008). The distribution and behaviour of Patiriella mortenseni and P. regularis in the extreme hyposaline conditions of the southern New Zealand fiords. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 355(1), 76-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2007.12.001
Barthel, D., & Theede, H. (1986). A new method for the culture of marine sponges and its application for experimental studies. Ophelia, 25(2), 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00785326.1986.10429715
Bell, J. J., McGrath, E., Biggerstaff, A., Bates, T., Cárdenas, C. A., & Bennett, H. (2015). Global conservation status of sponges. Conservation Biology, 29(1), 42-53.
Bell, J. J., McGrath, E., Kandler, N. M., Marlow, J., Beepat, S. S., Bachtiar, R., Shaffer, M. R., Mortimer, C., Micaroni, V., & Mobilia, V. (2020). Interocean patterns in shallow water sponge assemblage structure and function. Biological Reviews, 95(6), 1720-1758.
Berge, J. A., Bjerkeng, B., Pettersen, O., Schaanning, M. T., & Øxnevad, S. (2006). Effects of increased sea water concentrations of CO2 on growth of the bivalve Mytilus edulis L. Chemosphere, 62(4), 681-687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.04.111
Bergquist, P. R. (1998). The marine Fauna of New Zealand: Porifera: Demospongiae part 5. Dendroceratida and Halisarcida. Oceanographic Literature Review, 1(45), 102.
Berry, T. E., Osterrieder, S. K., Murray, D. C., Coghlan, M. L., Richardson, A. J., Grealy, A. K., Stat, M., Bejder, L., & Bunce, M. (2017). DNA metabarcoding for diet analysis and biodiversity: A case study using the endangered Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea). Ecology and Evolution, 7, 5435-5453.
Berry, T. E., Saunders, B. J., Coghlan, M. L., Stat, M., Jarman, S., Richardson, A. J., Davies, C. H., Berry, O., Harvey, E. S., & Bunce, M. (2019). Marine environmental DNA biomonitoring reveals seasonal patterns in biodiversity and identifies ecosystem responses to anomalous climatic events. PLoS Genetics, 15(2), e1007943. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007943
Bessey, C., Neil Jarman, S., Simpson, T., Miller, H., Stewart, T., Kenneth Keesing, J., & Berry, O. (2021). Passive eDNA collection enhances aquatic biodiversity analysis. Communications Biology, 4(1), 236. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-01760-8
Babraham Bioinformatics. (2011). FastQC: A quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Babraham Institute.
Boussarie, G., Bakker, J., Wangensteen, O. S., Mariani, S., Bonnin, L., Juhel, J.-B., Kiszka, J. J., Kulbicki, M., Manel, S., Robbins, W. D., Vigliola, L., & Mouillot, D. (2018). Environmental DNA illuminates the dark diversity of sharks. Science Advances, 4(5), 9661. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aap9661
Bowers, H. A., Pochon, X., von Ammon, U., Gemmell, N., Stanton, J.-A. L., Jeunen, G.-J., Sherman, C. D. H., & Zaiko, A. (2021). Towards the optimization of eDNA/eRNA sampling technologies for marine biosecurity surveillance. Water, 13(8), 1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081113
Boyle, M. C., Jillett, J. B., & Mladenov, P. V. (2001). Intertidal communities in doubtful sound, New Zealand: Changes over time. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 35(4), 663-673. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2001.9517033
Cai, W., Harper, L. R., Neave, E. F., Shum, P., Craggs, J., Arias, M. B., Riesgo, A., & Mariani, S. (2022). Environmental DNA persistence and fish detection in captive sponges. Molecular Ecology Resources, 22(8), 2956-2966. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13677
Carew, M. E., Coleman, R. A., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2018). Can non-destructive DNA extraction of bulk invertebrate samples be used for metabarcoding? PeerJ, 6, e4980. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4980
Çinar, M. E., Bakir, K., Doğan, A., Açik, S., Kurt, G., Katağan, T., Öztürk, B., Dağli, E., Özcan, T., & Kirkim, F. (2019). Macro-benthic invertebrates associated with the black sponge Sarcotragus foetidus (porifera) in the Levantine and Aegean seas, with special emphasis on alien species. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 227, 106306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.106306
Cowart, D. A., Murphy, K. R., & Cheng, C.-H. C. (2018). Metagenomic sequencing of environmental DNA reveals marine faunal assemblages from the west Antarctic Peninsula. Marine Genomics, 37, 148-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margen.2017.11.003
Cristescu, M. E., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2018). Uses and misuses of environmental DNA in biodiversity science and conservation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 49, 209-230.
Curtis, A. N., Larson, E. R., & Davis, M. A. (2021). Field storage of water samples affects measured environmental DNA concentration and detection. Limnology, 22(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-020-00634-y
Deiner, K., Lopez, J., Bourne, S., Holman, L., Seymour, M., Grey, E. K., Lacoursière, A., Li, Y., Renshaw, M. A., Pfrender, M. E., Rius, M., Bernatchez, L., & Lodge, D. M. (2018). Optimising the detection of marine taxonomic richness using environmental DNA metabarcoding: The effects of filter material, pore size and extraction method. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics, 2, e28963. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.2.28963
Djurhuus, A., Closek, C. J., Kelly, R. P., Pitz, K. J., Michisaki, R. P., Starks, H. A., Walz, K. R., Andruszkiewicz, E. A., Olesin, E., Hubbard, K., Montes, E., Otis, D., Muller-Karger, F. E., Chavez, F. P., Boehm, A. B., & Breitbart, M. (2020). Environmental DNA reveals seasonal shifts and potential interactions in a marine community. Nature Communications, 11(1), 254. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14105-1
Edgar, R. C. (2004). MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research, 32(5), 1792-1797. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh340
Fediajevaite, J., Priestley, V., Arnold, R., & Savolainen, V. (2021). Meta-analysis shows that environmental DNA outperforms traditional surveys, but warrants better reporting standards. Ecology and Evolution, 11(9), 4803-4815. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7382
Ficetola, G. F., Miaud, C., Pompanon, F., & Taberlet, P. (2008). Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples. Biology Letters, 4(4), 423-425.
Gibbs, M. T., Bowman, M. J., & Dietrich, D. E. (2000). Maintenance of near-surface stratification in doubtful sound, a New Zealand fjord. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 51(6), 683-704. https://doi.org/10.1006/ecss.2000.0716
Gökalp, M., Kooistra, T., Rocha, M. S., Silva, T. H., Osinga, R., Murk, A. J., & Wijgerde, T. (2020). The effect of depth on the morphology, bacterial clearance, and respiration of the mediterranean sponge Chondrosia reniformis (Nardo, 1847). Marine Drugs, 18(7), 358. https://doi.org/10.3390/md18070358
Grange, K. R., Singleton, R. I., Richardson, J. R., Hill, P. J., & Main, W. L. (1981). Shallow rock-wall biological associations of some southern fiords of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 8(2), 209-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014223.1981.10427963
Griffin, J. E., Matechou, E., Buxton, A. S., Bormpoudakis, D., & Griffiths, R. A. (2020). Modelling environmental DNA data; Bayesian variable selection accounting for false positive and false negative errors. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C: Applied Statistics, 69(2), 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12390
Hahn, E. E., Alexander, M. R., Grealy, A., Stiller, J., Gardiner, D. M., & Holleley, C. E. (2021). Unlocking inaccessible historical genomes preserved in formalin. Molecular Ecology Resources, 22(6), 2130-2147. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13505
Hajibabaei, M., Spall, J. L., Shokralla, S., & van Konynenburg, S. (2012). Assessing biodiversity of a freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate community through non-destructive environmental barcoding of DNA from preservative ethanol. BMC Ecology, 12(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-12-28
Hansen, B. K., Jacobsen, M. W., Middelboe, A. L., Preston, C. M., Marin, R., Bekkevold, D., Knudsen, S. W., Møller, P. R., & Nielsen, E. E. (2020). Remote, autonomous real-time monitoring of environmental DNA from commercial fish. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 13272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70206-8
Henry, L., & Hart, M. (2005). Regeneration from injury and resource allocation in sponges and corals: A review. International Review of Hydrobiology, 90(2), 125-158.
Hickman, C. P., Roberts, L. S., Larson, A., Ober, W. C., & Garrison, C. (1995). Animal diversity. WC Brown.
Hinlo, R., Gleeson, D., Lintermans, M., & Furlan, E. (2017). Methods to maximise recovery of environmental DNA from water samples. PLoS One, 12(6), e0179251. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179251
Honkoop, P. J. C., Bayne, B. L., Underwood, A. J., & Svensson, S. (2003). Appropriate experimental design for transplanting mussels (Mytilus sp.) in analyses of environmental stress: An example in Sydney harbour (Australia). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 297(2), 253-268.
Hunter, M. E., Dorazio, R. M., Butterfield, J. S. S., Meigs-Friend, G., Nico, L. G., & Ferrante, J. A. (2017). Detection limits of quantitative and digital PCR assays and their influence in presence-absence surveys of environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology Resources, 17(2), 221-229.
Jeunen, G.-J., Lamare, M., Devine, J., Mariani, S., Mills, S., Treece, J., Ferreira, S., & Gemmell, N. J. unpublished data.
Jeunen, G.-J., Dowle, E., Edgecombe, J., von Ammon, U., Gemmell, N., & Cross, H. (2022). CRABS: A software program to generate curated reference databases for metabarcoding sequencing data. Molecular Ecology Resources, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13741
Jeunen, G. J., Knapp, M., Spencer, H. G., Lamare, M. D., Taylor, H. R., Stat, M., Bunce, M., & Gemmell, N. J. (2019). Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding reveals strong discrimination among diverse marine habitats connected by water movement. Molecular Ecology Resources, 19(2), 426-438. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12982
Jeunen, G. J., Knapp, M., Spencer, H. G., Taylor, H. R., Lamare, M. D., Stat, M., Bunce, M., & Gemmell, N. J. (2018). Species-level biodiversity assessment using marine environmental DNA metabarcoding requires protocol optimization and standardization. Ecology and Evolution, 9(3), 1323-1335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4843
Jeunen, G. J., Lamare, M. D., Knapp, M., Spencer, H. G., Taylor, H. R., Stat, M., Bunce, M., & Gemmell, N. J. (2019). Water stratification in the marine biome restricts vertical environmental DNA (eDNA) signal dispersal. Environmental DNA, 2, 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.49
Jeunen, G.-J., Urban, L., Lewis, R., Knapp, M., Lamare, M., Rayment, W., Dawson, S., & Gemmell, N. (2020). Marine environmental DNA (eDNA) for biodiversity assessments: a one-to-one comparison between eDNA and baited remote underwater video (BRUV) surveys. Authorea. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160278512.26241559/v1
Jeunen, G.-J., von Ammon, U., Cross, H., Ferreira, S., Lamare, M., Day, R., Treece, J., Pochon, X., Zaiko, A., Gemmell, N. J., & Stanton, J.-A. L. (2022). Moving environmental DNA (eDNA) technologies from benchtop to the field using passive sampling and PDQeX extraction. Environmental DNA, 4(6), 1420-1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.356
Jo, T., Murakami, H., Masuda, R., Sakata, M. K., Yamamoto, S., & Minamoto, T. (2017). Rapid degradation of longer DNA fragments enables the improved estimation of distribution and biomass using environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology Resources, 17(6), e25-e33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12685
Kawato, M., Yoshida, T., Miya, M., Tsuchida, S., Nagano, Y., Nomura, M., Yabuki, A., Fujiwara, Y., & Fujikura, K. (2021). Optimization of environmental DNA extraction and amplification methods for metabarcoding of deep-sea fish. MethodsX, 8, 101238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101238
Kelly, R. P., Closek, C. J., O'Donnell, J. L., Kralj, J. E., Shelton, A. O., & Samhouri, J. F. (2017). Genetic and manual survey methods yield different and complementary views of an ecosystem. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 283. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00283
Kelly, R. P., Port, J. A., Yamahara, K. M., & Crowder, L. B. (2014). Using environmental DNA to census marine fishes in a large mesocosm. PLoS One, 9(1), e86175. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086175
Kim, D.-K., Park, K., Jo, H., & Kwak, I.-S. (2019). Comparison of water sampling between environmental DNA metabarcoding and conventional microscopic identification: A case study in Gwangyang Bay, South Korea. Applied Sciences, 9(16), 3272. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9163272
Kirtane, A., Atkinson, J. D., & Sassoubre, L. (2020). Design and validation of passive environmental DNA samplers using granular activated carbon and montmorillonite clay. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(19), 11961-11970. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c01863
Koziol, A., Stat, M., Simpson, T., Jarman, S., DiBattista, J. D., Harvey, E. S., Marnane, M., McDonald, J., & Bunce, M. (2019). Environmental DNA metabarcoding studies are critically affected by substrate selection. Molecular Ecology Resources, 19(2), 366-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12971
Liddy, M., Jeunen, G. -J., Lamare, M., & Gemmell, N. J. unpublished data.
Majaneva, M., Diserud, O. H., Eagle, S. H. C., Boström, E., Hajibabaei, M., & Ekrem, T. (2018). Environmental DNA filtration techniques affect recovered biodiversity. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 4682. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23052-8
Mariani, S., Baillie, C., Colosimo, G., & Riesgo, A. (2019). Sponges as natural environmental DNA samplers. Current Biology, 29(11), R401-R402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.031
Martin, M. (2011). Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet. Journal, 17(1), 10-12.
Miya, M., Sato, Y., Fukunaga, T., Sado, T., Poulsen, J. Y., Sato, K., Minamoto, T., Yamamoto, S., Yamanaka, H., Araki, H., & Kondoh, M. (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.
Murakami, H., Yoon, S., Kasai, A., Minamoto, T., Yamamoto, S., Sakata, M. K., Horiuchi, T., Sawada, H., Kondoh, M., Yamashita, Y., & Masuda, R. (2019). Dispersion and degradation of environmental DNA from caged fish in a marine environment. Fisheries Science, 85(2), 327-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-018-1282-6
Murray, D. C., Coghlan, M. L., & Bunce, M. (2015). From benchtop to desktop: Important considerations when designing amplicon sequencing workflows. PLoS One, 10(4), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124671
Nevers, M. B., Byappanahalli, M. N., Morris, C. C., Shively, D., Przybyla-Kelly, K., Spoljaric, A. M., Dickey, J., & Roseman, E. F. (2018). Environmental DNA (eDNA): A tool for quantifying the abundant but elusive round goby (Neogobius melanostomus). PLoS One, 13(1), e0191720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191720
O'Donnell, J. L., Kelly, R. P., Shelton, A. O., Samhouri, J. F., Lowell, N. C., & Williams, G. D. (2017). Spatial distribution of environmental DNA in a nearshore marine habitat. PeerJ, 5, e3044. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3044
Parsons, K. M., Everett, M., Dahlheim, M., & Park, L. (2020). Water, water everywhere: Environmental DNA can unlock population structure in elusive marine species. Royal Society Open Science, 5(8), 180537. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180537
Pham, C. K., Murillo, F. J., Lirette, C., Maldonado, M., Colaço, A., Ottaviani, D., & Kenchington, E. (2019). Removal of deep-sea sponges by bottom trawling in the Flemish cap area: Conservation, ecology and economic assessment. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 15843. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52250-1
Pinfield, R., Dillane, E., Runge, A. K. W., Evans, A., Mirimin, L., Niemann, J., Reed, T. E., Reid, D. G., Rogan, E., Samarra, F. I. P., Sigsgaard, E. E., & Foote, A. D. (2019). False-negative detections from environmental DNA collected in the presence of large numbers of killer whales (Orcinus orca). Environmental DNA, 1(4), 316-328. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.32
Port, J. A., O'Donnell, J. L., Romero-Maraccini, O. C., Leary, P. R., Litvin, S. Y., Nickols, K. J., Yamahara, K. M., & Kelly, R. P. (2016). Assessing vertebrate biodiversity in a kelp forest ecosystem using environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology, 25(2), 527-541. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13481
Prince, A. M., & Andrus, L. (1992). PCR: How to kill unwanted DNA. BioTechniques, 12(3), 358-360.
Riisgård, H. U., Lüskow, F., Pleissner, D., Lundgreen, K., & López, M. Á. P. (2013). Effect of salinity on filtration rates of mussels Mytilus edulis with special emphasis on dwarfed mussels from the low-saline Central Baltic Sea. Helgoland Marine Research, 67(3), 591-598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10152-013-0347-2
Rognes, T., Flouri, T., Nichols, B., Quince, C., & Mahé, F. (2016). VSEARCH: A versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ, 4, e2584.
Ruppert, K. M., Kline, R. J., & Rahman, M. S. (2019). Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: A systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Global Ecology and Conservation, 17, e00547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00547
Rutger, S. M., & Wing, S. R. (2006). Effects of freshwater input on shallow-water infaunal communities in doubtful sound, New Zealand. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 314, 35-47. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps314035
Saito, T., & Doi, H. (2021). Degradation modeling of water environmental DNA: Experiments on multiple DNA sources in pond and seawater. Environmental DNA, 3(4), 850-860. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.192
Sanches, T. M., & Schreier, A. D. (2020). Optimizing an eDNA protocol for estuarine environments: Balancing sensitivity, cost and time. PLoS One, 15(5), e0233522. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233522
Schnell, I. B., Bohmann, K., & Gilbert, M. T. P. (2015). Tag jumps illuminated - Reducing sequence-to-sample misidentifications in metabarcoding studies. Molecular Ecology Resources, 15(6), 1289-1303. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12402
Siegenthaler, A., Wangensteen, O. S., Soto, A. Z., Benvenuto, C., Corrigan, L., & Mariani, S. (2019). Metabarcoding of shrimp stomach content: Harnessing a natural sampler for fish biodiversity monitoring. Molecular Ecology Resources, 19(1), 206-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12956
Sigsgaard, E. E., Nielsen, I. B., Carl, H., Krag, M. A., Knudsen, S. W., Xing, Y., Holm-Hansen, T. H., Møller, P. R., & Thomsen, P. F. (2017). Seawater environmental DNA reflects seasonality of a coastal fish community. Marine Biology, 164(6), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-017-3147-4
Stat, M., John, J., DiBattista, J. D., Newman, S. J., Bunce, M., & Harvey, E. S. (2019). Combined use of eDNA metabarcoding and video surveillance for the assessment of fish biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 33(1), 196-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13183
Stoeckle, M. Y., Soboleva, L., & Charlop-Powers, Z. (2017). Aquatic environmental DNA detects seasonal fish abundance and habitat preference in an urban estuary. PLoS One, 12(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175186
Tacon, A. G. J. (2020). Trends in global aquaculture and aquafeed production: 2000-2017. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 28(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2019.1649634
Takasaki, K., Aihara, H., Imanaka, T., Matsudaira, T., Tsukahara, K., Usui, A., Osaki, S., & Doi, H. (2021). Water pre-filtration methods to improve environmental DNA detection by real-time PCR and metabarcoding. PLoS One, 16(5), e0250162. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250162
Thomsen, P. F., Kielgast, J., Iversen, L. L., Møller, P. R., Rasmussen, M., & Willerslev, E. (2012). Detection of a diverse marine fish Fauna using environmental DNA from seawater samples. PLoS One, 7(8), e41732. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041732
Thomsen, P. F., Møller, P. R., Sigsgaard, E. E., Knudsen, S. W., Jørgensen, O. A., & Willerslev, E. (2016). Environmental DNA from seawater samples correlate with trawl catches of subarctic, Deepwater fishes. PLoS One, 11(11), e0165252. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165252
Turner, C., Uy, K., & Everhart, R. (2015). Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water. Biological Conservation, 183, 93-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.017
Turon, M., Angulo-Preckler, C., Antich, A., Praebel, K., & Wangensteen, O. S. (2020). More than expected from old sponge samples: A natural sampler DNA metabarcoding assessment of marine fish diversity in Nha Trang Bay (Vietnam). Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 1042. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.605148
Turon, M., Cáliz, J., Triadó-Margarit, X., Casamayor, E. O., & Uriz, M. J. (2019). Sponges and their microbiomes show similar community metrics across impacted and well-preserved reefs. Frontiers in Microbiology, 10, 1961. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01961
Uthicke, S., Lamare, M., & Doyle, J. R. (2018). eDNA detection of corallivorous seastar (Acanthaster cf. solaris) outbreaks on the great barrier reef using digital droplet PCR. Coral Reefs, 37(4), 1229-1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-018-1734-6
Valdivia-Carrillo, T., Rocha-Olivares, A., Reyes-Bonilla, H., Domínguez-Contreras, J. F., & Munguia-Vega, A. (2019). Beyond traditional biodiversity fish monitoring: Environmental DNA metabarcoding and simultaneous underwater visual census detect different sets of a complex fish community at a marine biodiversity hotspot. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/806729
van der Reis, A. L., Laroche, O., Jeffs, A. G., & Lavery, S. D. (2018). Preliminary analysis of New Zealand scampi (Metanephrops challengeri) diet using metabarcoding. PeerJ, 6, e5641.
Verdier, H., Konecny, L., Marquette, C., Reveron, H., Tadier, S., Grémillard, L., Barthès, A., Datry, T., Bouchez, A., & Lefébure, T. (2021). Passive sampling of environmental DNA in aquatic environments using 3D-printed hydroxyapatite samplers. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.12.443744
von Ammon, U., Wood, S. A., Laroche, O., Zaiko, A., Lavery, S. D., Inglis, G. J., & Pochon, X. (2019). Linking environmental DNA and RNA for improved detection of the marine invasive Fanworm Sabella spallanzanii. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 621. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00621
Wilcox, T. M., McKelvey, K. S., Young, M. K., Sepulveda, A. J., Shepard, B. B., Jane, S. F., Whiteley, A. R., Lowe, W. H., & Schwartz, M. K. (2016). Understanding environmental DNA detection probabilities: A case study using a stream-dwelling char Salvelinus fontinalis. Biological Conservation, 194, 209-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.023
Wilcox, T. M., Schwartz, M. K., McKelvey, K. S., Young, M. K., & Lowe, W. H. (2014). A blocking primer increases specificity in environmental DNA detection of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Conservation Genetics Resources, 6(2), 283-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-013-0113-4
Wood, S. A., Biessy, L., Latchford, J. L., Zaiko, A., von Ammon, U., Audrezet, F., Cristescu, M. E., & Pochon, X. (2020). Release and degradation of environmental DNA and RNA in a marine system. Science of the Total Environment, 704, 135314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135314
Xiong, W., Li, H., & Zhan, A. (2016). Early detection of invasive species in marine ecosystems using high-throughput sequencing: Technical challenges and possible solutions. Marine Biology, 163(6), 139.
Yamahara, K. M., Preston, C. M., Birch, J., Walz, K., Marin, R., Jensen, S., Pargett, D., Roman, B., Ussler, W., Zhang, Y., Ryan, J., Hobson, B., Kieft, B., Raanan, B., Goodwin, K. D., Chavez, F. P., & Scholin, C. (2019). In situ autonomous acquisition and preservation of marine environmental DNA using an autonomous underwater vehicle. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00373
Yeh, H. D., Questel, J. M., Maas, K. R., & Bucklin, A. (2020). Metabarcoding analysis of regional variation in gut contents of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus in the North Atlantic Ocean. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 180, 104738.
Zizka, V. M. A., Leese, F., Peinert, B., & Geiger, M. F. (2018). DNA metabarcoding from sample fixative as a quick and voucher-preserving biodiversity assessment method. Genome, 62(3), 122-136. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2018-0048