3:30 PM - 5:00 PM
[AOS13-P05] Comparison of fish species eDNA detection by MiFish analysis between intake-water, surface-water & niskin bottle sampling methods
Keywords:Environmental DNA (eDNA), MiFish Analysis, Intake, Niskin, Surface, Fish Detection
Environmental DNA (eDNA) is gaining immense popularity in monitoring fish species distribution pattern and biodiversity in the ocean due to its non-invasive nature and convenience to use. MiFish metabarcoding technique is a modern technique in analyzing fish community distribution in waterbodies which capacitates detection of huge number of species at a short time. However, several studies showed influence of water sampling methods on eDNA analyses. Therefore, we compared eDNA detection from different sampling methods. Intake (3m), bucket (0m) and Niskin bottle samples (5m or 10m) were collected from 116 different stations from different seasons and were then filtered and stored appropriately to extract the DNA and finally segregated in respective Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) by MiFish analysis. A total of 267 species has been recorded from 109 families which indicates a highly diversified environment of the study site. Among these species 146 species were common in all three sampling types while some species were recorded exclusively in only one sampling type. The detection percentage of most of the species did not vary significantly among different sampling types while some species vary significantly among each sampling type.
The most dominant families were Myctophidae (13%), Scombridae (5%), Carangidae (5%) Exocoetidae (4%) and Gobiidae (4%). The species that were detected in higher percentage in all three sampling types were Engraulis japonicus, Myctophum asperum, Scomber australasicus, Scomber japonicus, Sardinops melanostictus, Trachurus japonicus and Cololabis saira.
For frequently detected species, most of them did not show any significant difference in the detection percentage except for Japanese Jack mackerel (Trachurus japonicus) and Pacific Saury (Cololabis saira). The Japanese Jack Mackerel and Pacific Saury have a better detection percentage compared in the surface water compared to intake and niskin samples. These samples were taken during the spawning season of Japanese Jack Mackerel, and the higher detection rate in the surface water may be attributed to the drifting eggs and larvae of the species. The Pacific Saury, on the other hand, is more likely to be distributed below 10 meters, which may eventually enable better detection of the species in surface water samples. The results support an idea that the Niskin, intake and surface water samples can be used as a mixture or simultaneously for MiFish analysis.
Further investigation on the impact of environments and species dependencies on the detection differences among the three types of sampling has led to findings that suggest there may be strong correlations between a number of environmental and physical factors and the detection of various species in each of the sampling types.
<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>
The most dominant families were Myctophidae (13%), Scombridae (5%), Carangidae (5%) Exocoetidae (4%) and Gobiidae (4%). The species that were detected in higher percentage in all three sampling types were Engraulis japonicus, Myctophum asperum, Scomber australasicus, Scomber japonicus, Sardinops melanostictus, Trachurus japonicus and Cololabis saira.
For frequently detected species, most of them did not show any significant difference in the detection percentage except for Japanese Jack mackerel (Trachurus japonicus) and Pacific Saury (Cololabis saira). The Japanese Jack Mackerel and Pacific Saury have a better detection percentage compared in the surface water compared to intake and niskin samples. These samples were taken during the spawning season of Japanese Jack Mackerel, and the higher detection rate in the surface water may be attributed to the drifting eggs and larvae of the species. The Pacific Saury, on the other hand, is more likely to be distributed below 10 meters, which may eventually enable better detection of the species in surface water samples. The results support an idea that the Niskin, intake and surface water samples can be used as a mixture or simultaneously for MiFish analysis.
Further investigation on the impact of environments and species dependencies on the detection differences among the three types of sampling has led to findings that suggest there may be strong correlations between a number of environmental and physical factors and the detection of various species in each of the sampling types.
<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>