RESUMEN
To protect and restore ecosystems and biodiversity is one of the 10 challenges identified by the United Nations's Decade of the Ocean Science. In this study we used eDNA from sediments collected in two fjords of the Svalbard archipelago and compared the taxonomic composition with traditional methods through metabarcoding, targeting mitochondrial CO1, to survey benthos. Clustering of 21.6 mill sequence reads with a d value of 13 in swarm, returned about 25 K OTU reads. An identification search with the BOLD database returned 12,000 taxonomy annotated sequences spanning a similarity range of 50% to 100%. Using an acceptance filter of minimum 90% similarity to the CO1 reference sequence, we found that 74% of the ca 100 taxon identified sequence reads were Polychaeta and 22% Nematoda. Relatively few other benthic invertebrate species were detected. Many of the identified sequence reads were extra-organismal DNA from terrestrial, planktonic, and photic zone sources. For the species rich Polychaeta, we found that, on average, only 20.6% of the species identified from morphology were also detected with DNA. This discrepancy was not due to missing reference sequences in the search database, because 90-100% (mean 96.7%) of the visually identified species at each station were represented with barcodes in Boldsystems. The volume of DNA samples is small compared with the volume searched in visual sorting, and the replicate DNA-samples in sum covered only about 2% of the surface area of a grab. This may considerably reduce the detection rate of species that are not uniformly distributed in the sediments. Along with PCR amplification bias and primer mismatch, this may be an important reason for the limited congruence of species identified with the two approaches. However, metabarcoding also identified 69 additional species that are usually overlooked in visual sample sorting, demonstrating how metabarcoding can complement traditional methodology by detecting additional, less conspicuous groups of organisms.
Asunto(s)
Ecosistema , Estuarios , Animales , Svalbard , Código de Barras del ADN Taxonómico/métodos , Monitoreo del Ambiente/métodos , Invertebrados/genética , Biodiversidad , ADN/genéticaRESUMEN
In deep-sea surveys, heavy gears are often preferred to effectively collect macro benthos while smaller samplers are sufficient in coastal and shallow areas. However, there are few comparative studies of the samples retained and results gained from different-sized grabs. To study the differences in sampling properties between a small (sampling area of 0.1 m2) and a large (0.25 m2) van Veen grab, 1 m2 of seafloor was sampled with each of the grab sizes at four test sites in the Barents- and Norwegian Sea; one inside a fjord and three offshore, across a depth range of 287-963 m. Overall, the small and large grab collected a comparable number of species and individuals: 248 and 233 species, and 6074 and 6143 individuals, respectively. The large grab retrieved the most species at the deepest location while the small grab collected more species at the other test sites. Based on internationally recommended 0.5 m2 sampling units, a variation in the total species richness per test site of 7-13% was found while the diversity indices (ES100 and H') varied by less than 10%. Independent of grab size, a cluster and nMDS analysis showed four clearly separated sample-groups that correspond to the four test stations although the multivariate dispersion was consistently higher for the small grab. A SIMPROF test showed no grab size-dependent differences. ANOSIM and PERMANOVA tests showed differences between grab sizes for the deepest station, where a similar difference occurred also between samples of the same grab size. This station displayed the least faunal heterogeneity, indicating that faunal patchiness may influence any grab-size differences. The results indicate that the two van Veen grabs tested deliver comparable quantitative faunal compositions. For the small grab, however, numerous samples were rejected due to poor performance, resulting in increased sampling time, ship costs and a suggested biased sampling towards less heterogeneous sediments at the fjord site.