Dr. Paul Czechowski2,3, Dr. Michel de Lange4,5, Mr. Michael Heldsinger6,7, Ms. Anya Kardailsky2,9, A/Prof. Will Rayment1,7, Prof. Christopher Hepburn1,7, Dr. Monique Ladds8, A/Prof. Michael Knapp1,2
1Coastal People Southern Skies Centre of Research Excellence, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, , , 2Department of Anatomy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, , , 3Helmholtz-Institut für Metabolismus-, Adipositas- und Gefäßforschung, Helmholtz Zentrum München – Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH), Leipzig, Germany, , , 4Biostatistics Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, , , 5Pacific Edge, Dunedin, New Zealand, , , 6RPS Group, West Perth, Western Australia, Australia, , , 7Department of Marine Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, , , 8Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand, , , 9Minderoo Foundation, ,
Biography:
Associate Professor Michael Knapp is a Molecular Ecologist with a strong interest in using ancient and environmental DNA to support conservation efforts and biodiversity monitoring.
Abstract:
Effective management of biodiversity requires regular surveillance of multiple species. Analysis of environmental DNA (eDNA) by metabarcoding holds promise to achieve this relatively easily. However, taxonomy-focused eDNA surveys need suitable molecular reference data, which are often lacking, particularly at the species level and for remote locations. To evaluate the comparability of environmental DNA surveys and traditional surveys in a real-life case study in a marine area of high conservation value, we conducted a biodiversity survey of the fish in remote and pristine Te Wāhipounamu/Fiordland (Aotearoa/New Zealand), incorporating multiple data sources. We compared eDNA-derived species identifications against Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) data collected at the same time and locations as eDNA. We also cross-referenced both eDNA and BRUV data against literature and the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS), with literature and OBIS data representing a summary of multiple traditional surveying approaches. We found a very limited overlap between species identified by eDNA and those identified by traditional survey methods. We argue that limited DNA reference databases are the main cause of this discrepancy. Environmental DNA analyses can only identify species present among reference data and may converge on closely related species if the correct species is missing from the database. However, the high number of species detected by our eDNA analyses confirms that eDNA could be a powerful tool for biodiversity surveys if suitable investments in local reference databases were made.