Is it worth the extra mile? Comparing environmental DNA and RNA metabarcoding for vertebrate and invertebrate biodiversity surveys in a lowland stream

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has emerged as a promising approach to assess biodiversity and derive ecological status classes from water samples. However, a limitation of eDNA surveys is that detected DNA molecules may originate from other places or even dead organisms, distorting local biodiversity assessments. Environmental RNA (eRNA) metabarcoding has recently been proposed as a complementary tool for more localized assessments of the biological community. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of eDNA and eRNA metabarcoding for inferring the richness and species distribution patterns of vertebrates and invertebrates in a Central European lowland river. We collected water samples and analyzed them using a 12S marker for vertebrates and a COI marker for invertebrates. We detected 31 fish, 16 mammal, 10 bird and one lamprey species in the vertebrate dataset. While results were largely consistent, we detected a higher number of species when analysing eRNA (mean = 30.89) than eDNA (mean = 26.16). Also, eRNA detections had a stronger local signature than eDNA detections when compared against species distribution patterns from traditional fish monitoring data. For invertebrates, we detected 109 arthropod, 22 annelid, 12 rotiferan, eight molluscan and four cnidarian species. In contrast to the pattern of vertebrate richness, we detected a higher richness using eDNA (mean = 41.37) compared to eRNA (mean = 22.42). Our findings primarily show that eDNA and eRNA-based detections are comparable for vertebrate and invertebrate taxa. Biological replication was important for both template molecules studied. Signal detections for vertebrates were more localized for eRNA compared to eDNA. Overall, the advantages of the extra steps needed for eRNA analyses depend on the study question but both methods provide important data for biodiversity monitoring and research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PeerJ
Published
2024-10-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.18016
Citations
14
Primary Topic
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.42

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Is it worth the extra mile? Comparing environmental DNA and RNA metabarcoding for vertebrate and invertebrate biodiversity surveys in a lowland stream

Till‐Hendrik Macher, Robin Schütz, Arne J. Beermann, Florian Leese et al.
14 citations
PeerJ
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
6.42
article

Is it worth the extra mile? Comparing environmental DNA and RNA metabarcoding for vertebrate and invertebrate biodiversity surveys in a lowland stream

Till‐Hendrik Macher, Robin Schütz, Arne J. Beermann, Florian Leese, Jens Arle, Kamil Hupało, Jan Koschorreck, Laurence G. Frank
article en
14 citations

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has emerged as a promising approach to assess biodiversity and derive ecological status classes from water samples. However, a limitation of eDNA surveys is that detected DNA molecules may originate from other places or even dead organisms, distorting local biodiversity assessments. Environmental RNA (eRNA) metabarcoding has recently been proposed as a complementary tool for more localized assessments of the biological community. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of eDNA and eRNA metabarcoding for inferring the richness and species distribution patterns of vertebrates and invertebrates in a Central European lowland river. We collected water samples and analyzed them using a 12S marker for vertebrates and a COI marker for invertebrates. We detected 31 fish, 16 mammal, 10 bird and one lamprey species in the vertebrate dataset. While results were largely consistent, we detected a higher number of species when analysing eRNA (mean = 30.89) than eDNA (mean = 26.16). Also, eRNA detections had a stronger local signature than eDNA detections when compared against species distribution patterns from traditional fish monitoring data. For invertebrates, we detected 109 arthropod, 22 annelid, 12 rotiferan, eight molluscan and four cnidarian species. In contrast to the pattern of vertebrate richness, we detected a higher richness using eDNA (mean = 41.37) compared to eRNA (mean = 22.42). Our findings primarily show that eDNA and eRNA-based detections are comparable for vertebrate and invertebrate taxa. Biological replication was important for both template molecules studied. Signal detections for vertebrates were more localized for eRNA compared to eDNA. Overall, the advantages of the extra steps needed for eRNA analyses depend on the study question but both methods provide important data for biodiversity monitoring and research.

PeerJVol. 12
German Environment Agency (DE), University of Duisburg-Essen (DE), Universität Trier (DE)
Umweltbundesamt, Landesamt für Natur, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
6.42
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.