Keeping up with introduced marine species at a remote biodiversity hotspot: awareness, training and collaboration across different sectors is key

Huhn, Mareike; Madduppa, Hawis; Khair, Miftahul; Sabrian, Amri; Irawati, Yulina; Anggraini, Nike; Wilkinson, Shaun P.; Simpson, Tiffany; Iwasaki, K.; Setiamarga, Davin H. E.; Dias, P. Joana

doi:10.1007/s10530-019-02126-2

Cited by 16 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, studies employing both eDNA and bulk organismal samples suggest that eDNA alone cannot replace organismal sampling (e.g. Leduc et al 2019, Huhn et al 2020, Rey et al 2020, Westfall et al 2020). Currently, it would probably work best as an early alert system or exploratory method to be used as a complement to conventional approaches such as in situ visual confirmation (Borrell et al 2018, Holman et al 2019, Rey et al 2020, specimen collection (Leduc et al 2019, Huhn et al 2020 or followed by active surveillance with digital drop PCR (ddPCR) or quantitative PCR (qPCR) (Wood et al 2019).…”

Section: Sampled Locations Substrates and Biological Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to detect the majority of taxa in a given location, in particular rare and/or patchy species, biodiversity surveys require comprehensive spatial and temporal sampling and screening of different types of substrates (e.g. water, sediment, bulk samples; Koziol et al 2018, Huhn et al 2020, Rey et al 2020, Westfall et al 2020. However, the sampling design varied significantly across studies and very few have compared the effects of the sampling effort or the use of different substrates in NIS detection (see Zaiko et al 2016, Koziol et al 2018, Rey et al 2020, Westfall et al 2020 (Table S2).…”

Section: Sampling Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PVC plates deployment, plankton nets, water and sediment sampling). Combining different sampling methods may be crucial to maximize NIS detection at a particular site (Koziol et al 2018, Huhn et al 2020, Rey et al 2020, Westfall et al 2020. Within each site, the use of several replicates per substrate may also be better suited to maximize the chances of NIS detection (Koziol et al 2018, Holman et al 2019, Westfall et al 2020.…”

Section: Sampling Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The depth at which the water is sampled is another technical aspect that varied across studies (Table S3). Most studies sampled surface water (10-30 cm) (Borrell et al 2017, Koziol et al 2018, Holman et al 2019, Huhn et al 2020, Suarez-Menendez et al 2020), but many others sampled different depths to increase representativeness (Lacoursière-Roussel 2018, Leduc et al 2019, Rey et al 2020, Westfall et al 2020. Vertical eDNA distribution in the water column may vary as a function of several factors (e.g.…”

Section: Sample Pre-processing Before Dna Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the major vectors, responsible for the transfer of marine NIS, is transoceanic shipping via ballast waters and hull fouling, or canals connecting large water bodies (Ruiz et al 2000, Molnar et al 2008, Hulme 2009. At smaller scales, intraregional or leisure boating may also enhance the spread of NIS (Fletcher et al 2017, Huhn et al 2020). The ports and marinas, where these vessels dock, often act as hubs for the spread of NIS (Borrell et al 2017, Holman et al 2019.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Status and prospects of marine NIS detection and monitoring through (e)DNA metabarcoding

Duarte

Vieira

Lavrador

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

17In coastal ecosystems, non-indigenous species (NIS) are recognized as a major threat to 18 biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and socio-economic activities. Here we present a systematic 19 review on the use of metabarcoding for NIS surveillance in marine and coastal ecosystems, 20 through the analysis of 42 publications. Metabarcoding has been mainly applied to environmental 21 DNA (eDNA) from water samples, but also to DNA extracted from bulk organismal samples. 22 2 seeking the best approach for detecting the broadest range of species, while minimizing the 38 chances of false positives and false negatives detection. 39 40 Keywords: Marine and coastal ecosystems; non-indigenous species; biosurveillance; (e)DNA 41 metabarcoding 42 43

show abstract

Section: Sampled Locations Substrates and Biological Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sampling Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sampling Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sample Pre-processing Before Dna Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Status and prospects of marine NIS detection and monitoring through (e)DNA metabarcoding

Duarte

Vieira

Lavrador

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globalization has increased connectivity between countries enhancing the spread of marine nonindigenous species (NIS). The establishment of marine NIS shows substantial negative effects on the structure and functioning of the natural ecosystems by competing for habitats and resources. Ports are often hubs for the spread of NIS via commercial and recreational vessels. Prevention, detection, and mitigation efforts are required to avoid and manage the establishment of NIS in new ecosystems. In this study, metabarcoding approaches targeting the nuclear small‐subunit ribosomal RNA (18S rRNA) gene and mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) gene were used to investigate planktonic and sessile (i.e., biofouling) communities and NIS at four locations in Tahiti, including two marinas and one port with varying anthropogenic impacts, and a relatively pristine site (Manava) used as a control. ASV richness values showed significant differences (18S rRNA gene: p = .023; COI: p < .001) between locations in the plankton samples, with the control site (low impact) having the highest diversity for both genes. ASV richness was also significantly different among locations for the biofouling samples in the COI dataset (p = .002). Community composition differed between locations with spatial patterns appearing stronger for the plankton samples compared with the biofouling samples. Detection of NIS based on selected lists of globally invasive species revealed a wide diversity of potentially invasive taxa especially in the more anthropogenically impacted regions. The use of a multigene approach improved the detection of NIS. This study demonstrates the utility of using a metabarcoding approach to routinely monitor areas most at risk from NIS establishment in Tahiti and other coastal nations. These coastal nations are vulnerable to shipping‐mediated incursions, and baseline information is required for both native diversity and nonindigenous diversity.

show abstract

eDNA metabarcoding illuminates species diversity and composition of three phyla (chordata, mollusca and echinodermata) across Indonesian coral reefs

Madduppa

Cahyani²,

Anggoro³

et al. 2021

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keeping up with introduced marine species at a remote biodiversity hotspot: awareness, training and collaboration across different sectors is key

Cited by 16 publications

References 68 publications

Status and prospects of marine NIS detection and monitoring through (e)DNA metabarcoding

Status and prospects of marine NIS detection and monitoring through (e)DNA metabarcoding

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

eDNA metabarcoding illuminates species diversity and composition of three phyla (chordata, mollusca and echinodermata) across Indonesian coral reefs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About