Disentangling the complex microbial community of coral reefs using standardized Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS)

Abstract

Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) have been applied worldwide to describe eukaryotic cryptic reef fauna. Conversely, bacterial communities, which are critical components of coral reef ecosystem functioning, remain largely overlooked. Here we deployed 56 ARMS across the 2,000‐km spread of the Red Sea to assay biodiversity, composition and inferred underlying functions of coral reef‐associated bacterial communities via 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We found that bacterial community structure and diversity aligned with environmental differences. Indeed, sea surface temperature and macroalgae cover were key in explaining bacterial relative abundance. Importantly, taxonomic and functional alpha diversity decreased under more extreme environmental conditions (e.g., higher temperatures) in the southern Red Sea. This may imply a link between bacterial community diversity and functional capabilities, with implications for conservation management. Our study demonstrates the utility of ARMS to investigate the response of coral reef‐associated bacterial communities to environmental change.

Pan‐regional marine benthic cryptobiome biodiversity patterns revealed by metabarcoding Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures

“…In addition, with the deployment of ARMS across large spatial scales and the use of standardized sampling protocols, large scale biodiversity patterns can be obtained. So far, this has been undertaken using molecular approaches along the length of the Red Sea (Carvalho et al., 2019; Pearman et al., 2019) with morphological assessments of benthic substrates being undertaken in European waters and the Red Sea (David et al., 2019). ARMS have been deployed globally (https://www.oceanarms.org/deployments/search, accessed July 7, 2020) opening the possibility for global studies.…”

“…ARMS have thus been increasingly applied over the last decade to research rocky habitats in different regions (e.g. east coast of the USA (Leray & Knowlton, 2015); Red Sea (Carvalho et al., 2019; Pearman et al., 2016, 2019); French Polynesia (Ransome et al., 2017); Gulf of Aqaba (Al‐Rshaidat et al., 2016), Indonesia (Hazeri et al., 2019) and European waters (David et al., 2019; Pennesi & Danovaro, 2017)). The combination of a standardized tool for sampling biodiversity (i.e.…”

Metabarcoding as a tool to enhance marine surveillance of nonindigenous species in tropical harbors: A case study in Tahiti

“…This comprises not only DNA contained in the cells of an organism but also extracellular DNA originating from feces, urine, saliva, or dead cells (Taberlet et al., 2018). The analysis of eDNA can be effectively used to complement existing biomonitoring techniques through metabarcoding of entire biological communities (e.g., Carvalho et al., 2019; de Vargas et al., 2015; Fonseca et al., 2010; Keeley et al., 2018; Pearman et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2011). Environmental DNA metabarcoding has been proposed as a future tool for early and cost‐effective screening for NIS (e.g., Brown et al., 2016; Chain et al., 2016; Chariton et al., 2010; Darling et al., 2017; Suarez‐Menendez et al., 2020; Wood et al., 2013) from a range of environmental samples to complement marine surveillance programs.…”

Marine biomonitoring with eDNA: Can metabarcoding of water samples cut it as a tool for surveying benthic communities?

“…Less effort has been devoted to the study of hard-substrate natural benthic communities. These have been analysed either using indirect methods based on deploying artificial substrates (Cahill et al, 2018;Leray & Knowlton, 2015;Pearman et al, 2019;Ransome et al, 2017), or by directly taking samples by scraping off standardized surfaces (Shum, Barney, O'Leary, & Palumbi, 2019;Wangensteen, Cebrian, Palacín, & Turon, 2018;Wangensteen, Palacín, Guardiola, & Turon, 2018) or using suction devices (Cowart et al, 2020;De Jode et al, 2019).…”