Aquatic environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys are transforming how marine ecosystems are monitored. The time-consuming pre-processing step of active filtration, however, remains a bottleneck. Hence, new approaches that eliminate the need for active filtration are required. Filter-feeding invertebrates have been proven to collect eDNA, but side-by-side comparative studies to investigate the similarity between aquatic and filter-feeder eDNA signals are essential. Here, we investigated the differences among four eDNA sources (water; bivalve gill-tissue; sponges; and ethanol in which filter-feeding organisms were stored) along a vertically stratified transect in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand using three metabarcoding primer sets targeting fish and vertebrates. Combined, eDNA sources detected 59 vertebrates, while concurrent diver surveys observed eight fish species. There were no significant differences in alpha and beta diversity between water and sponge eDNA and both sources were highly correlated. Vertebrate eDNA was successfully extracted from the ethanol in which sponges were stored, although a reduced number of species were detected. Bivalve gill-tissue dissections, on the other hand, failed to reliably detect eDNA. Overall, our results show that vertebrate eDNA signals obtained from water samples and marine sponges are highly concordant. The strong similarity in eDNA signals demonstrates the potential of marine sponges as an additional tool for eDNA-based marine biodiversity surveys, by enabling the incorporation of larger sample numbers in eDNA surveys, reducing plastic waste, simplifying sample collection, and as a cost-efficient alternative. However, we note the importance to not detrimentally impact marine communities by, for example, non-lethal subsampling, specimen cloning, or using bycatch specimens.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2023.
All research outputs
#19,374,112
of 29,695,593 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Ecology Resources
#1,505
of 1,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,538
of 522,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Ecology Resources
#20
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,695,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,996 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 522,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
