Associations between the pink wormfish, Microdesmus longipinnis (Weymouth), and the ghost shrimp, Lepidophthalmus louisianensis (Schmitt), in artificial burrows

Savage, Andrew M.; Felgenhauer, Bruce E.

doi:10.1007/s10641-016-0526-5

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Fat Sleepers Dormitator maculatus prefer areas of dense vegetation, mangrove prop roots, submerged logs, or other structures (McLane 1955;Nordlie 1979Nordlie , 1981Brockmeyer 1989;Winemiller and Ponwith 1998) that are inaccessible to the gears that were deployed in this study. Green Goby Microgobius thalassinus inhabit oyster reefs in association with sponges (Schwartz 1971), and Speckled Worm Eel Myrophis punctatus and Pink Wormfish Microgobius longipinnis are burrowing species (Felder and de Almeida Rodrigues 1993;Able et al 2011;Savage 2020). All of these species were detected with eDNA and undetected using traditional sampling gears.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental DNA compliments traditional sampling for monitoring fish communities in a Texas estuary

Williford,

Hajovsky,

Anderson

2023

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveEnvironmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has become an important method for inventorying and monitoring biota in aquatic systems. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department conducts regular fishery‐independent sampling of biotic communities using traditional sampling gears, such as gill nets and bag seines, in all of the major estuaries of adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas. Previous studies have shown that eDNA approaches can complement traditional sampling methods.MethodsWe compared fish community structure data in the Cedar Lakes estuary system obtained with traditional sampling gears with data obtained using eDNA sampling using a small sequence of mitochondrial 12S ribosomal RNA gene and a validated taxonomic reference file.ResultFor spring and fall of 2022, eDNA metabarcoding detected a larger number of species than either bag seines or gill nets. Species richness detected via eDNA in two seasons in a single year was comparable with the species richness of agency’s historical record based on traditional gears for Cedar Lakes.ConclusionSeasonal and spatial variation in species richness was similar between traditional and eDNA sampling; however, eDNA metabarcoding allowed detection of several species that would be difficult or impossible to capture with either bag seines or gill nets. We observed two limitations of eDNA metabarcoding. Read depth was not a good index of relative abundance, which limits our ability to infer relative biomass using single samples. Secondly, we observed detection bias in our eDNA results. Specifically, eDNA failed to detect two species of elasmobranchs present when water sampling was performed and eDNA also performed poorly compared to traditional sampling gears for some species of bony fishes. Despite these limitations, eDNA metabarcoding proved to be an efficient and cost‐effective alternative and compliment to traditional fisheries sampling gears for fishery‐independent monitoring of community structure and composition in estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico.

show abstract