2015 Assessing vertebrate biodiversity in a kelp forest ecosystem using environmental
Assessing vertebrate biodiversity in a kelp forest ecosystem using environmental DNA
Abstract: Preserving biodiversity is a global challenge requiring data on species’ distribution and abundance over large geographic and temporal scales. However, traditional methods to survey mobile species’ distribution and abundance in marine environments are often inefficient, environmentally destructive, or resource‐intensive. Metabarcoding of environmental DNA (eDNA) offers a new means to assess biodiversity and on much larger scales, but adoption of this approach for surveying whole animal communities in large, dy…
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
282
157
93
18
Citation Types
35
507
3
0
Year Published
2015
2026
Publication Types
Select...
365
65
19
13
Relationship
18
444
Authors
Journals
Cited by 454 publications
(546 citation statements)
References 63 publications
35
507
3
0
“…This is, however, contrary to studies in other kelp forests globally (depth range: 5–12 m, sampled 1 m above ocean floor, Port et al. 2016; depth range 0–10 m, sampled along vertical transect, Monuki, Barber, and Gold 2021), where depth partitioning in community assemblages was detected. The lack of differences detected in our study may be an artifact of the close depth proximity (1 m vs. 4 m); however, our finding is consistent with Rossouw et al.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…This is, however, contrary to studies in other kelp forests globally (depth range: 5–12 m, sampled 1 m above ocean floor, Port et al. 2016; depth range 0–10 m, sampled along vertical transect, Monuki, Barber, and Gold 2021), where depth partitioning in community assemblages was detected. The lack of differences detected in our study may be an artifact of the close depth proximity (1 m vs. 4 m); however, our finding is consistent with Rossouw et al.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…The total variance in community-level ecological distance was attributable to differences among sites (38.6%), among transects within sites (45.4%), or among PCR replicates of the same water samples (15.9%; PERMANOVA with Jaccard distance, p < 0.001, 999 permutations, using OTU presence-absence data). These results are consistent with earlier work in nearshore habitats ( Port et al, 2016 ), reflecting differences in eDNA profiles at spatial scales on the order of tens to hundreds of meters (here, between transects separated by ca. 50–100 m) and limited variability due to PCR and sequencing processes.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…These results are consistent with a substantial number of studies that have found that eDNA metabarcoding distinguishes biological communities that are physically connected by currents over similar or smaller distances apart than our field stations (Port et al. 2016; Jeunen et al. 2019; West et al.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
