Effect of marker choice and thermal cycling protocol on zooplankton DNA metabarcoding studies

DNA metabarcoding is a promising approach for rapidly surveying biodiversity and is likely to become an important tool for measuring ecosystem responses to environmental change. Metabarcoding markers need sufficient taxonomic coverage to detect groups of interest, sufficient sequence divergence to resolve species, and will ideally indicate relative abundance of taxa present. We characterized zooplankton assemblages with three different metabarcoding markers (nuclear 18S rDNA, mitochondrial COI, and mitochondrial 16S rDNA) to compare their performance in terms of taxonomic coverage, taxonomic resolution, and correspondence between morphology‐ and DNA‐based identification. COI amplicons sequenced on separate runs showed that operational taxonomic units representing >0.1% of reads per sample were highly reproducible, although slightly more taxa were detected using a lower annealing temperature. Mitochondrial COI and nuclear 18S showed similar taxonomic coverage across zooplankton phyla. However, mitochondrial COI resolved up to threefold more taxa to species compared to 18S. All markers revealed similar patterns of beta‐diversity, although different taxa were identified as the greatest contributors to these patterns for 18S. For calanoid copepod families, all markers displayed a positive relationship between biomass and sequence reads, although the relationship was typically strongest for 18S. The use of COI for metabarcoding has been questioned due to lack of conserved primer‐binding sites. However, our results show the taxonomic coverage and resolution provided by degenerate COI primers, combined with a comparatively well‐developed reference sequence database, make them valuable metabarcoding markers for biodiversity assessment.     

A DNA mini‐barcode for marine macrophytes

Studies focusing on marine macrophyte metabarcoding from environmental samples are scarce, due to the lack of a universal barcode for these taxa, and to their poor representation in DNA databases. Here, we searched for a short barcode able to identify marine macrophytes from tissue samples; then, we created a DNA reference library which was used to identify macrophytes in eDNA from coastal sediments. Barcoding of seagrasses, mangroves and marine macroalgae (Chlorophyta, Rhodophyta and Phaeophyceae) was tested using 18 primer pairs from six barcoding genes: the plant barcodes rbcL, matK and trnL, plus the genes ITS2, COI and 18S. The 18S gene showed the highest universality among marine macrophytes, amplifying 95%–100% of samples; amplification performance of the other barcodes was limited. Taxonomy was assigned using a phylogeny‐based approach to create an 18S DNA reference library. Macrophyte tissue sequences were accurately identified within their phyla (88%), order (76%), genus (71%) and species (23%). Nevertheless, out of 86 macrophytes tested, only 48% and 15% had a reference sequence at genus and at species level, respectively. Identification at these levels can be improved by more inclusive reference libraries. Using the 18S mini‐barcode and the reference library, we recovered eDNA from 21 marine macrophytes in sediments, demonstrating the barcode's ability to trace primary producers that contribute to blue carbon. We expect this barcode to also be useful for other ecological questions, such as tracing macro primary producers in marine food webs.     

Environmental metabarcodes for insects: in silico PCR reveals potential for taxonomic bias

Studies of insect assemblages are suited to the simultaneous DNA‐based identification of multiple taxa known as metabarcoding. To obtain accurate estimates of diversity, metabarcoding markers ideally possess appropriate taxonomic coverage to avoid PCR‐amplification bias, as well as sufficient sequence divergence to resolve species. We used in silico PCR to compare the taxonomic coverage and resolution of newly designed insect metabarcodes (targeting 16S) with that of existing markers [16S and cytochrome oxidase c subunit I (COI)] and then compared their efficiency in vitro. Existing metabarcoding primers amplified in silico <75% of insect species with complete mitochondrial genomes available, whereas new primers targeting 16S provided >90% coverage. Furthermore, metabarcodes targeting COI appeared to introduce taxonomic PCR‐amplification bias, typically amplifying a greater percentage of Lepidoptera and Diptera species, while failing to amplify certain orders in silico. To test whether bias predicted in silico was observed in vitro, we created an artificial DNA blend containing equal amounts of DNA from 14 species, representing 11 insect orders and one arachnid. We PCR‐amplified the blend using five primer sets, targeting either COI or 16S, with high‐throughput amplicon sequencing yielding more than 6 million reads. In vitro results typically corresponded to in silico PCR predictions, with newly designed 16S primers detecting 11 insect taxa present, thus providing equivalent or better taxonomic coverage than COI metabarcodes. Our results demonstrate that in silico PCR is a useful tool for predicting taxonomic bias in mixed template PCR and that researchers should be wary of potential bias when selecting metabarcoding markers.     

Environmental DNA metabarcoding primers for freshwater fish detection and quantification: In silico and in tanks

Environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques refer to utilizing the organisms’ DNA extracted from environment samples to genetically identify target species without capturing actual organisms. eDNA metabarcoding via high‐throughput sequencing can simultaneously detect multiple fish species from a single water sample, which is a powerful tool for the qualitative detection and quantitative estimates of multiple fish species. However, sequence counts obtained from eDNA metabarcoding may be influenced by many factors, of which primer bias is one of the foremost causes of methodological error. The performance of 18 primer pairs for COI, cytb, 12S rRNA, and 16S rRNA mitochondrial genes, which are all frequently used in fish eDNA metabarcoding, were evaluated in the current study. The ribosomal gene markers performed better than the protein‐coding gene markers during in silico screening, resulting in higher taxonomic coverage and appropriate barcode lengths. Four primer pairs—AcMDB07, MiFish‐U, Ve16S1, and Ve16S3—designed for various regions of the 12S and 16S rRNA genes were screened for tank metabarcoding in a case study targeting six freshwater fish species. The four primer pairs were able to accurately detect all six species in different tanks, while only MiFish‐U, Ve16S1, and Ve16S3 revealed a significant positive relationship between species biomass and read count for the pooled tank data. The positive relationship could not be found in all species within the tanks. Additionally, primer efficiency differed depending on the species while primer preferential species varied in different fish assemblages. This case study supports the potential for eDNA metabarcoding to assess species diversity in natural ecosystems and provides an alternative strategy to evaluate the performance of candidate primers before application of eDNA metabarcoding in natural ecosystems.     

In silico and empirical evaluation of twelve metabarcoding primer sets for insectivorous diet analyses

During the most recent decade, environmental DNA metabarcoding approaches have been both developed and improved to minimize the biological and technical biases in these protocols. However, challenges remain, notably those relating to primer design. In the current study, we comprehensively assessed the performance of ten COI and two 16S primer pairs for eDNA metabarcoding, including novel and previously published primers. We used a combined approach of in silico, in vivo‐mock community (33 arthropod taxa from 16 orders), and guano‐based analyses to identify primer sets that would maximize arthropod detection and taxonomic identification, successfully identify the predator (bat) species, and minimize the time and financial costs of the experiment. We focused on two insectivorous bat species that live together in mixed colonies: the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) and Geoffroy's bat (Myotis emarginatus). We found that primer degeneracy is the main factor that influences arthropod detection in silico and mock community analyses, while amplicon length is critical for the detection of arthropods from degraded DNA samples. Our guano‐based results highlight the importance of detecting and identifying both predator and prey, as guano samples can be contaminated by other insectivorous species. Moreover, we demonstrate that amplifying bat DNA does not reduce the primers' capacity to detect arthropods. We therefore recommend the simultaneous identification of predator and prey. Finally, our results suggest that up to one‐third of prey occurrences may be unreliable and are probably not of primary interest in diet studies, which may decrease the relevance of combining several primer sets instead of using a single efficient one. In conclusion, this study provides a pragmatic framework for eDNA primer selection with respect to scientific and methodological constraints.     

Assessing insect biodiversity with automatic light traps in Brazil: Pearls and pitfalls of metabarcoding samples in preservative ethanol

Automated species identification based on data produced with metabarcoding offers an alternative for assessing biodiversity of bulk insect samples obtained with traps. We used a standard two‐step PCR approach to amplify a 313 bp fragment of the barcoding region of the mitochondrial COI gene. The PCR products were sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform, and the OTUs production and taxonomic identifications were performed with a customized pipeline and database. The DNA used in the PCR procedures was extracted directly from the preservative ethanol of bulk insect samples obtained with automatic light traps in 12 sampling areas located in different biomes of Brazil, during wet and dry seasons. Agricultural field and forest edge habitats were collected for all sampling areas. A total of 119 insect OTUs and nine additional OTUs assigned to other arthropod taxa were obtained at a ≥97% sequence similarity level. The alpha and beta diversity analyses comparing biomes, habitats, and seasons were mostly inconclusive, except for a significant difference in beta diversity between biomes. In this study, we were able to metabarcode and HTS adult insects from their preservative medium. Notwithstanding, our results underrepresent the true magnitude of insect diversity expected from samples obtained with automatic light traps in Brazil. Although biological and technical factors might have impacted our results, measures to optimize and standardize eDNA HTS should be in place to improve taxonomic coverage of samples of unknown diversity and stored in suboptimal conditions, which is the case of most eDNA samples.     

Comparison of morphological,DNA barcoding,and metabarcoding characterizations of freshwater nematode communities

Biomonitoring approaches and investigations of many ecological questions require assessments of the biodiversity of a given habitat. Small organisms, ranging from protozoans to metazoans, are of great ecological importance and comprise a major share of the planet's biodiversity but they are extremely difficult to identify, due to their minute body sizes and indistinct structures. Thus, most biodiversity studies that include small organisms draw on several methods for species delimitation, ranging from traditional microscopy to molecular techniques. In this study, we compared the efficiency of these methods by analyzing a community of nematodes. Specifically, we evaluated the performances of traditional morphological identification, single‐specimen barcoding (Sanger sequencing), and metabarcoding in the identification of 1500 nematodes from sediment samples. The molecular approaches were based on the analysis of the 28S ribosomal large and 18S small subunits (LSU and SSU). The morphological analysis resulted in the determination of 22 nematode species. Barcoding identified a comparable number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) based on 28S rDNA (n = 20) and fewer OTUs based on 18S rDNA (n = 12). Metabarcoding identified a higher OTU number but fewer amplicon sequence variants (AVSs) (n = 48 OTUs, n = 17 ASVs for 28S rDNA, and n = 31 OTUs, n = 6 ASVs for 18S rDNA). Between the three approaches (morphology, barcoding, and metabarcoding), only three species (13.6%) were shared. This lack of taxonomic resolution hinders reliable community identifications to the species level. Further database curation will ensure the effective use of molecular species identification.     

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding reveals strong discrimination among diverse marine habitats connected by water movement

While in recent years environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding surveys have shown great promise as an alternative monitoring method, the integration into existing marine monitoring programs may be confounded by the dispersal of the eDNA signal. Currents and tidal influences could transport eDNA over great distances, inducing false‐positive species detection, leading to inaccurate biodiversity assessments and, ultimately, mismanagement of marine environments. In this study, we determined the ability of eDNA metabarcoding surveys to distinguish localized signals obtained from four marine habitats within a small spatial scale (<5 km) subject to significant tidal and along‐shore water flow. Our eDNA metabarcoding survey detected 86 genera, within 77 families and across 11 phyla using three established metabarcoding assays targeting fish (16S rRNA gene), crustacean (16S rRNA gene) and eukaryotic (cytochrome oxidase subunit 1) diversity. Ordination and cluster analyses for both taxonomic and OTU data sets show distinct eDNA signals between the sampled habitats, suggesting dispersal of eDNA among habitats was limited. Individual taxa with strong habitat preferences displayed localized eDNA signals in accordance with their respective habitat, whereas taxa known to be less habitat‐specific generated more ubiquitous signals. Our data add to evidence that eDNA metabarcoding surveys in marine environments detect a broad range of taxa that are spatially discrete. Our work also highlights that refinement of assay choice is essential to realize the full potential of eDNA metabarcoding surveys in marine biodiversity monitoring programs.     

Species‐level biodiversity assessment using marine environmental DNA metabarcoding requires protocol optimization and standardization

DNA extraction from environmental samples (environmental DNA; eDNA) for metabarcoding‐based biodiversity studies is gaining popularity as a noninvasive, time‐efficient, and cost‐effective monitoring tool. The potential benefits are promising for marine conservation, as the marine biome is frequently under‐surveyed due to its inaccessibility and the consequent high costs involved. With increasing numbers of eDNA‐related publications have come a wide array of capture and extraction methods. Without visual species confirmation, inconsistent use of laboratory protocols hinders comparability between studies because the efficiency of target DNA isolation may vary. We determined an optimal protocol (capture and extraction) for marine eDNA research based on total DNA yield measurements by comparing commonly employed methods of seawater filtering and DNA isolation. We compared metabarcoding results of both targeted (small taxonomic group with species‐level assignment) and universal (broad taxonomic group with genus/family‐level assignment) approaches obtained from replicates treated with the optimal and a low‐performance capture and extraction protocol to determine the impact of protocol choice and DNA yield on biodiversity detection. Filtration through cellulose‐nitrate membranes and extraction with Qiagen's DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit outperformed other combinations of capture and extraction methods, showing a ninefold improvement in DNA yield over the poorest performing methods. Use of optimized protocols resulted in a significant increase in OTU and species richness for targeted metabarcoding assays. However, changing protocols made little difference to the OTU and taxon richness obtained using universal metabarcoding assays. Our results demonstrate an increased risk of false‐negative species detection for targeted eDNA approaches when protocols with poor DNA isolation efficacy are employed. Appropriate optimization is therefore essential for eDNA monitoring to remain a powerful, efficient, and relatively cheap method for biodiversity assessments. For seawater, we advocate filtration through cellulose‐nitrate membranes and extraction with Qiagen's DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit or phenol‐chloroform‐isoamyl for successful implementation of eDNA multi‐marker metabarcoding surveys.     

eDNA metabarcoding as a new surveillance approach for coastal Arctic biodiversity

Because significant global changes are currently underway in the Arctic, creating a large‐scale standardized database for Arctic marine biodiversity is particularly pressing. This study evaluates the potential of aquatic environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding to detect Arctic coastal biodiversity changes and characterizes the local spatio‐temporal distribution of eDNA in two locations. We extracted and amplified eDNA using two COI primer pairs from ~80 water samples that were collected across two Canadian Arctic ports, Churchill and Iqaluit, based on optimized sampling and preservation methods for remote regions surveys. Results demonstrate that aquatic eDNA surveys have the potential to document large‐scale Arctic biodiversity change by providing a rapid overview of coastal metazoan biodiversity, detecting nonindigenous species, and allowing sampling in both open water and under the ice cover by local northern‐based communities. We show that DNA sequences of ~50% of known Canadian Arctic species and potential invaders are currently present in public databases. A similar proportion of operational taxonomic units was identified at the species level with eDNA metabarcoding, for a total of 181 species identified at both sites. Despite the cold and well‐mixed coastal environment, species composition was vertically heterogeneous, in part due to river inflow in the estuarine ecosystem, and differed between the water column and tide pools. Thus, COI‐based eDNA metabarcoding may quickly improve large‐scale Arctic biomonitoring using eDNA, but we caution that aquatic eDNA sampling needs to be standardized over space and time to accurately evaluate community structure changes.     

Assessing eukaryotic biodiversity in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary through environmental DNA metabarcoding

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is the DNA suspended in the environment (e.g., water column), which includes cells, gametes, and other material derived from but not limited to shedding of tissue, scales, mucus, and fecal matter. Amplifying and sequencing marker genes (i.e., metabarcoding) from eDNA can reveal the wide range of taxa present in an ecosystem through analysis of a single water sample. Metabarcoding of eDNA provides higher resolution data than visual surveys, aiding in assessments of ecosystem health. This study conducted eDNA metabarcoding of two molecular markers (cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) and 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes) to survey eukaryotic diversity across multiple trophic levels in surface water samples collected at three sites along the coral reef tract within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) during four research cruises in 2015. The 18S rRNA gene sequences recovered 785 genera while the COI gene sequences recovered 115 genera, with only 33 genera shared between the two datasets, emphasizing the complementarity of these marker genes. Community composition for both genetic markers clustered by month of sample collection, suggesting that temporal variation has a larger effect on biodiversity than spatial variability in the FKNMS surface waters. Sequences from both marker genes were dominated by copepods, but each marker recovered distinct phytoplankton groups, with 18S rRNA gene sequences dominated by dinoflagellates and COI sequences dominated by coccolithophores. Although eDNA samples were collected from surface waters, many benthic species such as sponges, crustaceans, and corals were identified. These results show the utility of eDNA metabarcoding for cataloging biodiversity to establish an ecosystem baseline against which future samples can be compared in order to monitor community changes.     

Metabarcoding for stomach‐content analyses of Pygmy devil ray (Mobula kuhlii cf. eregoodootenkee): Comparing tissue and ethanol preservative‐derived DNA

The application of high‐throughput sequencing to retrieve multi‐taxon DNA from different substrates such as water, soil, and stomach contents has enabled species identification without prior knowledge of taxon compositions. Here we used three minibarcodes designed to target mitochondrial COI in plankton, 16S in fish, and 16S in crustaceans, to compare ethanol‐ and tissue‐derived DNA extraction methodologies for metabarcoding. The stomach contents of pygmy devilrays (Mobula kuhlii cf. eregoodootenkee) were used to test whether ethanol‐derived DNA would provide a suitable substrate for metabarcoding. The DNA barcoding assays indicated that tissue‐derived operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were greater compared to those from extractions performed directly on the ethanol preservative. Tissue‐derived DNA extraction is therefore recommended for broader taxonomic coverage. Metabarcoding applications should consider including the following: (i) multiple barcodes, both taxon specific (e.g., 12S or 16S) and more universal (e.g., COI or 18S) to overcome bias and taxon misidentification and (ii) PCR inhibitor removal steps that will likely enhance amplification yields. However, where tissue is limited or no longer available, but the ethanol‐preservative medium is still available, metabarcoding directly from ethanol does recover the majority of common OTUs, suggesting the ethanol‐retrieval method could be applicable for dietary studies. Metabarcoding directly from preservative ethanol may also be useful where tissue samples are limited or highly valued; bulk samples are collected, such as for rapid species inventories; or mixed‐voucher sampling is conducted (e.g., for plankton, insects, and crustaceans).     

A DNA barcode library for 5,200 German flies and midges (Insecta: Diptera) and its implications for metabarcoding‐based biomonitoring

This study summarizes results of a DNA barcoding campaign on German Diptera, involving analysis of 45,040 specimens. The resultant DNA barcode library includes records for 2,453 named species comprising a total of 5,200 barcode index numbers (BINs), including 2,700 COI haplotype clusters without species‐level assignment, so called “dark taxa.” Overall, 88 out of 117 families (75%) recorded from Germany were covered, representing more than 50% of the 9,544 known species of German Diptera. Until now, most of these families, especially the most diverse, have been taxonomically inaccessible. By contrast, within a few years this study provided an intermediate taxonomic system for half of the German Dipteran fauna, which will provide a useful foundation for subsequent detailed, integrative taxonomic studies. Using DNA extracts derived from bulk collections made by Malaise traps, we further demonstrate that species delineation using BINs and operational taxonomic units (OTUs) constitutes an effective method for biodiversity studies using DNA metabarcoding. As the reference libraries continue to grow, and gaps in the species catalogue are filled, BIN lists assembled by metabarcoding will provide greater taxonomic resolution. The present study has three main goals: (a) to provide a DNA barcode library for 5,200 BINs of Diptera; (b) to demonstrate, based on the example of bulk extractions from a Malaise trap experiment, that DNA barcode clusters, labelled with globally unique identifiers (such as OTUs and/or BINs), provide a pragmatic, accurate solution to the “taxonomic impediment”; and (c) to demonstrate that interim names based on BINs and OTUs obtained through metabarcoding provide an effective method for studies on species‐rich groups that are usually neglected in biodiversity research projects because of their unresolved taxonomy.     

Toward an ecoregion scale evaluation of eDNA metabarcoding primers: A case study for the freshwater fish biodiversity of the Murray–Darling Basin (Australia)

High‐throughput sequencing of environmental DNA (i.e., eDNA metabarcoding) has become an increasingly popular method for monitoring aquatic biodiversity. At present, such analyses require target‐specific primers to amplify DNA barcodes from co‐occurring species, and this initial amplification can introduce biases. Understanding the performance of different primers is thus recommended prior to undertaking any metabarcoding initiative. While multiple software programs are available to evaluate metabarcoding primers, all programs have their own strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, a robust in silico workflow for the evaluation of metabarcoding primers will benefit from the use of multiple programs. Furthermore, geographic differences in species biodiversity are likely to influence the performance of metabarcoding primers and further complicate the evaluation process. Here, an in silico workflow is presented that can be used to evaluate the performance of metabarcoding primers on an ecoregion scale. This workflow was used to evaluate the performance of published and newly developed eDNA metabarcoding primers for the freshwater fish biodiversity of the Murray–Darling Basin (Australia). To validate the in silico workflow, a subset of the primers, including one newly designed primer pair, were used in metabarcoding analyses of an artificial DNA community and eDNA samples. The results show that the in silico workflow allows for a robust evaluation of metabarcoding primers and can reveal important trade‐offs that need to be considered when selecting the most suitable primer. Additionally, a new primer pair was described and validated that allows for more robust taxonomic assignments and is less influenced by primer biases compared to commonly used fish metabarcoding primers.     

Identifying error and accurately interpreting environmental DNA metabarcoding results: A case study to detect vertebrates at arid zone waterholes

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding surveys enable rapid, noninvasive identification of taxa from trace samples with wide‐ranging applications from characterizing local biodiversity to identifying food‐web interactions. However, the technique is prone to error from two major sources: (a) contamination through foreign DNA entering the workflow, and (b) misidentification of DNA within the workflow. Both types of error have the potential to obscure true taxon presence or to increase taxonomic richness by incorrectly identifying taxa as present at sample sites, but multiple error sources can remain unaccounted for in metabarcoding studies. Here, we use data from an eDNA metabarcoding study designed to detect vertebrate species at waterholes in Australia's arid zone to illustrate where and how in the workflow errors can arise, and how to mitigate those errors. We detected the DNA of 36 taxa spanning 34 families, 19 orders and five vertebrate classes in water samples from waterholes, demonstrating the potential for eDNA metabarcoding surveys to provide rapid, noninvasive detection in remote locations, and to widely sample taxonomic diversity from aquatic through to terrestrial taxa. However, we initially identified 152 taxa in the samples, meaning there were many false positive detections. We identified the sources of these errors, allowing us to design a stepwise process to detect and remove error, and provide a template to minimize similar errors that are likely to arise in other metabarcoding studies. Our findings suggest eDNA metabarcoding surveys need to be carefully conducted and screened for errors to ensure their accuracy.     

Environmental DNA metabarcoding of wild flowers reveals diverse communities of terrestrial arthropods

Terrestrial arthropods comprise the most species‐rich communities on Earth, and grassland flowers provide resources for hundreds of thousands of arthropod species. Diverse grassland ecosystems worldwide are threatened by various types of environmental change, which has led to decline in arthropod diversity. At the same time, monitoring grassland arthropod diversity is time‐consuming and strictly dependent on declining taxonomic expertise. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of complex samples has demonstrated that information on species compositions can be efficiently and non‐invasively obtained. Here, we test the potential of wild flowers as a novel source of arthropod eDNA. We performed eDNA metabarcoding of flowers from several different plant species using two sets of generic primers, targeting the mitochondrial genes 16S rRNA and COI. Our results show that terrestrial arthropod species leave traces of DNA on the flowers that they interact with. We obtained eDNA from at least 135 arthropod species in 67 families and 14 orders, together representing diverse ecological groups including pollinators, parasitoids, gall inducers, predators, and phytophagous species. Arthropod communities clustered together according to plant species. Our data also indicate that this experiment was not exhaustive, and that an even higher arthropod richness could be obtained using this eDNA approach. Overall, our results demonstrate that it is possible to obtain information on diverse communities of insects and other terrestrial arthropods from eDNA metabarcoding of wild flowers. This novel source of eDNA represents a vast potential for addressing fundamental research questions in ecology, obtaining data on cryptic and unknown species of plant‐associated arthropods, as well as applied research on pest management or conservation of endangered species such as wild pollinators.     

Net overboard: Comparing marine eDNA sampling methodologies at sea to unravel marine biodiversity

Environmental DNA (eDNA) analyses are powerful for describing marine biodiversity but must be optimized for their effective use in routine monitoring. To maximize eDNA detection probabilities of sparsely distributed populations, water samples are usually concentrated from larger volumes and filtered using fine-pore membranes, often a significant cost–time bottleneck in the workflow. This study aimed to streamline eDNA sampling by investigating plankton net versus bucket sampling, direct versus sequential filtration including self-preserving filters. Biodiversity was assessed using metabarcoding of the small ribosomal subunit (18S rRNA) and mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) genes. Multispecies detection probabilities were estimated for each workflow using a probabilistic occupancy modelling approach. Significant workflow-related differences in biodiversity metrics were reported. Highest amplicon sequence variant (ASV) richness was attained by the bucket sampling combined with self-preserving filters, comprising a large portion of microplankton. Less diversity but more metazoan taxa were captured in the net samples combined with 5 μm pore size filters. Prefiltered 1.2 μm samples yielded few or no unique ASVs. The highest average (~32%) metazoan detection probabilities in the 5 μm pore size net samples confirmed the effectiveness of preconcentration plankton for biodiversity screening. These results contribute to streamlining eDNA sampling protocols for uptake and implementation in marine biodiversity research and surveillance.     

Environmental DNA metabarcoding studies are critically affected by substrate selection

Effective biomonitoring is critical for driving management outcomes that ensure long‐term sustainability of the marine environment. In recent years, environmental DNA (eDNA), coupled with metabarcoding methodologies, has emerged as a promising tool for generating biotic surveys of marine ecosystems, including those under anthropogenic pressure. However, more empirical data are needed on how to best implement eDNA field sampling approaches to maximize their utility for each specific application. The effect of the substrate chosen for eDNA sampling on the diversity of marine taxa detected by DNA metabarcoding has not yet been systematically analysed, despite aquatic systems being those most commonly targeted for eDNA studies. We investigated the effect of four commonly used eDNA substrates to explore taxonomic diversity: (a) surface water, (b) marine sediment, (c) settlement plates and (d) planktonic tows. With a focus on coastal ports, 332 eDNA samples from Australia (Indian and Southern oceans) and Kazakhstan (Caspian Sea) were collected and analysed by multi‐assay DNA metabarcoding. Across study locations, between 30% and 52% of eukaryotic families detected were unique to a particular substrate and <6% of families were found in all four substrates. Taxonomic composition varied significantly depending on the substrate sampled implying that the suitability (and bias) of an eDNA substrate will depend on the focal taxa. These findings demonstrate that single substrate eDNA metabarcoding likely underestimates the total eukaryotic diversity. Future eDNA experimental design should consider incorporating multiple substrates or select substrate(s) best suited to the specific detection of target taxa.