Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorJensen, Mads Reinholdt
dc.contributor.authorAgersnap, Sune
dc.contributor.authorEgelyng Sigsgaard, Eva
dc.contributor.authorÁvila, Marcelo De Paula
dc.contributor.authorGlenner, Henrik
dc.contributor.authorWisz, Mary S
dc.contributor.authorThomsen, Philip Francis
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-29T12:18:18Z
dc.date.available2024-11-29T12:18:18Z
dc.date.issued2024-11-14
dc.description.abstractBenthic macrofauna are important and widely used biological indicators of marine ecosystems as they have limited mobility and therefore integrate the effects of local environmental stressors over time. Recently, environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis has provided a potentially more resource-efficient approach for benthic biomonitoring than traditional morphology-based methods. Several studies have compared eDNA with morphology-based monitoring, but few have compared the two approaches using the exact same sediment cores. In addition, the meiofauna and pelagic organisms obtained as ‘bycatch’ using eDNA have largely been disregarded from comparisons. Here, we address these shortcomings through comparative invertebrate analyses of six sediment sample replicates from each of four stations in Denmark, using eDNA metabarcoding and morphological identification. Our results revealed large variation between the six replicates for both methods and little overlap in taxon compositions between methods. While the morphological dataset was dominated by molluscs and annelids, the eDNA dataset was dominated by arthropods and annelids. Using community composition data, we found that sampling stations could be distinguished both with eDNA and morphology. Finally, we inferred expected total richness from extrapolated accumulation curves of detected taxa from each method. This indicated that eDNA metabarcoding requires less replication than morphology for maximum coverage of diversity to be reached. However, both methods required high levels of replication, and our results on taxonomic composition add to the evidence that morphological and eDNA-based methods should preferably be used as complimentary tools for marine bioassessment.en_US
dc.identifier.citationJensen, Jensen, Agersnap, Egelyng Sigsgaard, Ávila, Glenner, Wisz, Thomsen. The Core of the Matter—Importance of Identification Method and Biological Replication for Benthic Marine Monitoring. Ecology and Evolution. 2024;14(11)en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2323121
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ece3.70556
dc.identifier.issn2045-7758
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/35860
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.relation.journalEcology and Evolution
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2024 The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en_US
dc.titleThe Core of the Matter—Importance of Identification Method and Biological Replication for Benthic Marine Monitoringen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Med mindre det står noe annet, er denne innførselens lisens beskrevet som Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)