A manager’s guide to using eDNA metabarcoding in marine ecosystems
Zachary Gold,
Adam R. Wall,
Teia M. Schweizer,
N. Dean Pentcheff,
Emily E. Curd,
Paul H. Barber,
Rachel S. Meyer,
Robert Wayne,
Kevin Stolzenbach,
Kat Prickett,
Justin Luedy,
Regina Wetzer
Affiliations
Zachary Gold
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
Adam R. Wall
Diversity Initiative for the Southern California Ocean (DISCO), Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
Teia M. Schweizer
Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States of America
N. Dean Pentcheff
Diversity Initiative for the Southern California Ocean (DISCO), Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
Emily E. Curd
Department of Natural Sciences, Landmark College, Putney, VT, United States of America
Paul H. Barber
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
Rachel S. Meyer
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
Robert Wayne
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
Kevin Stolzenbach
Wood Environment and Infrastructure, Inc., San Diego, CA, United States of America
Kat Prickett
Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
Justin Luedy
Port of Long Beach, Long Beach, CA, United States of America
Regina Wetzer
Diversity Initiative for the Southern California Ocean (DISCO), Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is a powerful tool that can enhance marine ecosystem/biodiversity monitoring programs. Here we outline five important steps managers and researchers should consider when developing eDNA monitoring program: (1) select genes and primers to target taxa; (2) assemble or develop comprehensive barcode reference databases; (3) apply rigorous site occupancy based decontamination pipelines; (4) conduct pilot studies to define spatial and temporal variance of eDNA; and (5) archive samples, extracts, and raw sequence data. We demonstrate the importance of each of these considerations using a case study of eDNA metabarcoding in the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. eDNA metabarcoding approaches detected 94.1% (16/17) of species observed in paired trawl surveys while identifying an additional 55 native fishes, providing more comprehensive biodiversity inventories. Rigorous benchmarking of eDNA metabarcoding results improved ecological interpretation and confidence in species detections while providing archived genetic resources for future analyses. Well designed and validated eDNA metabarcoding approaches are ideally suited for biomonitoring applications that rely on the detection of species, including mapping invasive species fronts and endangered species habitats as well as tracking range shifts in response to climate change. Incorporating these considerations will enhance the utility and efficacy of eDNA metabarcoding for routine biomonitoring applications.
