Human impacts on deep-sea sponge grounds: Applying environmental omics to monitoring

Vad, Johanne; Barnhill, Kelsey Archer; Kazanidis, Georgios; Roberts, J. Murray

doi:10.1016/bs.amb.2021.08.004

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 117 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and colonize artificial reefs. These sponges are easily collected and are ideal candidates for linking biodiversity assessment with human impact (Wulff, 2001;Vad et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental DNA persistence and fish detection in captive sponges

Cai

Harper

Neave

et al. 2022

Molecular Ecology Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and colonize artificial reefs. These sponges are easily collected and are ideal candidates for linking biodiversity assessment with human impact (Wulff, 2001;Vad et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, some sponge species typically settle on various human‐made structures (e.g., piers, moorings, and oil rigs) and colonize artificial reefs. These sponges are easily collected and are ideal candidates for linking biodiversity assessment with human impact (Wulff, 2001 ; Vad et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental DNA persistence and fish detection in captive sponges

Cai

Harper

Neave

et al. 2022

Molecular Ecology Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, several sponge species can typically settle on various human-made structures (e.g., piers, moorings, and oil rigs) and colonise artificial reefs. Therefore, sponges are ideal candidates for linking biodiversity assessment with human impact (Wulff et al, 2001; Vad et al, 2021). Although the natural sampler approach is in its infancy and requires much validation in natural scenarios, it can be hypothesized that the many factors known to promote degradation and transport of aquatic eDNA (Strickler et al, 2015; Collins et al, 2018; Holman et al, 2021) could be less influential on sponges, given that eDNA would be afforded protection inside their tissue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental DNA persistence and fish detection in captive sponges

Cai

Harper

Neave

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large and hyper-diverse marine ecosystems pose significant challenges to biodiversity monitoring. While environmental DNA (eDNA) promises to meet many of these challenges, recent studies suggested that sponges, as ‘natural samplers’ of eDNA, could further streamline the workflow for detecting marine vertebrates. However, beyond pilot studies demonstrating the ability of sponges to capture eDNA, little is known about the journey of eDNA particles in the sponge tissues, and the effectiveness of the latter compared to water samples. Here, we present the results of a controlled aquarium experiment to examine the persistence and detectability of eDNA from three encrusting sponge species and how these compare with established water filtration techniques. Our results indicate that sponges and water samples have highly similar detectability for fish of different sizes and abundances, but different sponge species exhibit considerable variance in performance. Interestingly, one sponge appeared to mirror the eDNA degradation profile of water samples, while another sponge retained eDNA throughout the experiment. A third sponge yielded virtually no DNA sequences at all. Overall, our study suggests that some sponges will be suitable as natural samplers, while others will introduce significant problems for laboratory processing. We suggest that an initial optimization phase will be required in any future studies aiming to employ sponges for biodiversity assessment. With time, factoring in technical and natural accessibility, it is expected that specific sponge taxa may become the ‘chosen’ natural samplers in certain habitats and regions.

show abstract

“…Currently, not much is known about the effect deep-sea mining will have on nearby benthic communities, but it may have similar impacts to deep-sea bottom fishing (Clark et al, 2010). This is due to the risks of habitat loss caused during mining operations or potential toxicity and smothering from sedimentation of the mining plumes (Miller et al, 2018;Vad et al, 2021;Washburn et al, 2019;Wurz et al, 2021). Mining sites focusing on seafloor massive deposits or manganese crusts could lead to transport of sediment plumes to adjacent communities and result in adverse effects for the filter feeding taxa, which needs to be considered when planning such operations (Boschen et al, 2013;Dunn et al, 2018;Miller et al, 2018;Ramiro-Sánchez et al, 2019).…”

Section: Implications For Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%