Hide ‘n seq: Direct versus indirect metabarcoding of coral reef cryptic communities

20Citations
Citations of this article
69Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Ecological patterns in biodiversity are primarily based on conspicuous organisms. Few methods are used to survey the taxonomically rich cryptobiome, which is made up of inhabitants from within microhabitats. One way that cryptic marine biodiversity can be non-invasively surveyed is by analyzing environmental DNA (eDNA) present in seawater. Using coral reefs as a model system, here we compare estimates of cryptic diversity among community biomass and eDNA metabarcoding sampling methods with a broad eukaryotic marker (COI). First, contributions to eDNA were investigated across cryptobiomes through a comparison of community metabarcoded biomass from standardized autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) to eDNA acquired from seawater in which individual ARMS were soaked. Second, we compared these results to those from eDNA samples taken from within reef crevices and the ambient water column. Metabarcoding of community biomass from ARMS and eDNA from the two types of water samples revealed significantly different communities of cryptic coral reef habitat with little overlap between methods. Taxa that were unique to metabarcoding of ARMS biomass were predominantly from chitinous and calcifying groups (polychaetes, palaemonid shrimp, mollusks, brittle stars, and red algae), which suggests that these taxa are underrepresented in eDNA surveys. Other than the corals themselves, sponges and red algae were significant drivers of reef crevice community differences, while ambient seawater samples detected mostly planktonic organisms and reef fishes. Our data indicate that both eDNA and ARMS provide incomplete accounting of cryptic diversity. Direct sampling of biomass is best suited for building taxonomies and improving databases, whereas eDNA methods offer rapid insights into the composition of cryptobiomes. Because each method likely captures different taxa, multiple targeted assays can be used to provide the greatest estimates of metazoan and macroalgal richness.

References Powered by Scopus

Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST

16424Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Biological identifications through DNA barcodes

10958Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Quantifying biodiversity: Procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness

5066Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Metabarcoding the marine environment: from single species to biogeographic patterns

21Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Ecological indicators based on quantitative eDNA metabarcoding: the case of marine reserves

14Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Distinct coral reef habitat communities characterized by environmental DNA metabarcoding

11Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nichols, P. K., Timmers, M., & Marko, P. B. (2022). Hide ‘n seq: Direct versus indirect metabarcoding of coral reef cryptic communities. Environmental DNA, 4(1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.203

Readers over time

‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2507142128

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 27

71%

Researcher 9

24%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19

45%

Environmental Science 14

33%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 7

17%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 2

5%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 9

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0