Journal of Ecology and Environment

The Ecological Society of Korea (한국생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seasonal variation in longitudinal connectivity for fish community in the Hotancheon from the Geum River, as assessed by environmental DNA metabarcoding

  • Hyuk Je Lee (Molecular Ecology and Evolution Laboratory, Department of Biological Science, Sangji University) ;
  • Yu Rim Kim (Molecular Ecology and Evolution Laboratory, Department of Biological Science, Sangji University) ;
  • Hee-kyu Choi (Molecular Ecology and Evolution Laboratory, Department of Biological Science, Sangji University) ;
  • Seo Yeon Byeon (Molecular Ecology and Evolution Laboratory, Department of Biological Science, Sangji University) ;
  • Soon Young Hwang (Molecular Ecology and Evolution Laboratory, Department of Biological Science, Sangji University) ;
  • Kwang-Guk An (Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Seo Jin Ki (Department of Environmental Engineering, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Dae-Yeul Bae (Institute of Korea Eco-Network)
  • Received : 2023.10.11
  • Accepted : 2023.12.13
  • Published : 2024.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Longitudinal connectivity in river systems strongly affects biological components related to ecosystem functioning, thereby playing an important role in shaping local biodiversity and ecosystem health. Environmental DNA (eDNA)-based metabarcoding has an advantage of enabling to sensitively diagnose the presence/absence of species, becoming an efficient/effective approach for studying the community structure of ecosystems. However, little attention has been paid to eDNA-based biomonitoring for river systems, particularly for assessing the river longitudinal connectivity. In this study, by using eDNA we analyzed and compared species diversity and composition among artificial barriers to assess the longitudinal connectivity of the fish community along down-, mid- and upstream in the Hotancheon from the Geum River basin. Moreover, we investigated temporal variation in eDNA fish community structure and species diversity according to season. Results: The results of species detected between eDNA and conventional surveys revealed higher sensitivity for eDNA and 61% of species (23/38) detected in both methods. The results showed that eDNA-based fish community structure differs from down-, mid- and upstream, and species diversity decreased from down to upstream regardless of season. We found that there was generally higher species diversity at the study sites in spring (a total number of species across the sites [n] = 29) than in autumn (n = 27). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling and heatmap analyses further suggest that there was a tendency for community clusters to form in the down-, mid- and upstream, and seasonal variation in the community structure also existed for the sites. Dominant species in the Hotancheon was Rhynchocypris oxycephalus (26.07%) regardless of season, and subdominant species was Nipponocypris koreanus (16.50%) in spring and Odontobutis platycephala (15.73%) in autumn. Artificial barriers appeared to negatively affect the connectivity of some fish species of high mobility. Conclusions: This study attempts to establish a biological monitoring system by highlighting the versatility and power of eDNA metabarcoding in monitoring native fish community and further evaluating the longitudinal connectivity of river ecosystems. The results of this study suggest that eDNA can be applied to identify fish community structure and species diversity in river systems, although some shortcomings remain still need to be resolved.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We thank members of the Molecular Ecology and Evolution Laboratory of Sangji University for helping to collect eDNA water samples in the field.

References

  1. Allen DC, Datry T, Boersma KS, Bogan MT, Boulton AJ, Bruno D, et al. River ecosystem conceptual models and non-perennial rivers: a critical review. WIREs Water. 2020;7(5):e1473. 
  2. Barnes MA, Turner CR, Jerde CL, Renshaw MA, Chadderton WL, Lodge DM. Environmental conditions influence eDNA persistence in aquatic systems. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(3):1819-27. https://doi.org/10.1021/es404734p. 
  3. Bohmann K, Evans A, Gilbert MT, Carvalho GR, Creer S, Knapp M, et al. Environmental DNA for wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. Trends Ecol Evol. 2014;29(6):358-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.04.003. Erratum in: Trends Ecol Evol. 2014;29(8):485. 
  4. Buxton AS, Groombridge JJ, Zakaria NB, Griffiths RA. Seasonal variation in environmental DNA in relation to population size and environmental factors. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):46294. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46294. 
  5. Choi HK, Kim YR, Hwang SY, Chu Y, Kim P, Lee HJ. Investigation of fish community structure and species diversity in two river-estuary ecosystems, the Taewha River and Changwon-cheon, based on conventional survey and eDNA metabarcoding. Korean J Environ Biol. 2023;41(4):637-56. 
  6. Consuegra S, O'Rorke R, Rodriguez-Barreto D, Fernandez S, Jones J, Garcia de Leaniz C. Impacts of large and small barriers on fish assemblage composition assessed using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Sci Total Environ. 2021;790:148054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148054. 
  7. Darling JA, Mahon AR. From molecules to management: adopting DNA-based methods for monitoring biological invasions in aquatic environments. Environ Res. 2011;111(7):978-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2011.02.001. 
  8. DiBattista JD, Fowler AM, Riley IJ, Reader S, Hay A, Parkinson K, et al. The use of environmental DNA to monitor impacted coastal estuaries. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022;181:113860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113860. 
  9. Evans NT, Shirey PD, Wieringa JG, Mahon AR, Lamberti GA. Comparative cost and effort of fish distribution detection via environmental DNA analysis and electrofishing. Fisheries. 2017;42(2):90-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2017.1276329. 
  10. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. Stream corridor restoration: principles, processes and practices. Washington, D.C.: Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group; 2001. 
  11. Heo JW, Kang HS, Lee HG, Park SH, Kim KW, Jeong SY, et al. Monitoring on aquatic ecosystem to capture of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides): 2nd report. Daejeon: Water Management Committees of the Geum River; 2016. 
  12. Hur JW, Kang HS, Jang MH. Investigation on physical habitat condition and fish fauna in Dal Stream of Han River Basin. J Korean Soc Environ Eng. 2011;33(8):564-71. 
  13. Itakura H, Wakiya R, Yamamoto S, Kaifu K, Sato T, Minamoto T. Environmental DNA analysis reveals the spatial distribution, abundance, and biomass of Japanese eels at the river-basin scale. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2019;29(3):361-73. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3058. 
  14. Jeon SR. Studies on the distribution of fresh-water fished from Korea [PhD dissertation]. Seoul: Chungang University; 1980. 
  15. Jung SW, Lee JH, Kawai T, Kim PJ, Kim SH. Distribution status of invasive alien species (Procambarus clarkii (Girard, 1852)) using biomonitoring with environmental DNA in South Korea. Korean J Environ Ecol. 2022;36(4):368-80. https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2022.36.4.368. 
  16. Kang JH, Hwang JM, Kwon SJ, Baek MJ, Park SJ, Lim C, et al. Investigation of genetic variability in commercial and invaded natural populations of red swamp crayfish(Procambarus clarkii) from South Korea. Korean J Environ Biol. 2023;41(3):325-34. https://doi.org/10.11626/KJEB.2023.41.3.325. 
  17. Kim JE, Lee HG. The evaluation of potential invasive species in the Gangneungnamdae stream in Korea using a Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit. Korean J Environ Biol. 2018;36(1):73-81. https://doi.org/10.11626/KJEB.2018.36.1.073. 
  18. Lee S, Ahn CH, Song HM, Park JR, Joo JC. Prey survival and vulnerability of juvenile Rhynchocypris oxycephalus in juvenile fish shelters under predation by Korean native piscivorous fish (Coreoperca herzi). Water. 2017;9(1):36. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9010036. 
  19. Lee SH, Lee HG, Shin HS, Choi JK. The characteristic of fish fauna and distribution by habitat type in the Yanghwa stream of the Namhan river basins. Korean J Environ Ecol. 2012;26(6):884-91. 
  20. Leibowitz SG, Wigington PJ Jr, Schofield KA, Alexander LC, Vanderhoof MK, Golden HE. Connectivity of streams and wetlands to downstream waters: an integrated systems framework. J Am Water Resour Assoc. 2018;54(2):298-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12631. 
  21. Maruyama A, Nakamura K, Yamanaka H, Kondoh M, Minamoto T. The release rate of environmental DNA from juvenile and adult fish. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114639. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114639. Erratum in: PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0118727. Erratum in: PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0212145. 
  22. Misheel B, Kim KJ, Min KW, Jang MH. Swimming performance evaluation of four freshwater fish species from the South Korea. Korean J Ecol Environ. 2019;52(2):118-25. https://doi.org/10.11614/KSL.2019.52.2.118. 
  23. Miya M, Sato Y, Fukunaga T, Sado T, Poulsen JY, Sato K, et al. MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. R Soc Open Sci. 2015;2(7):150088. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150088. 
  24. National Institute of Biological Resources (NIBR). Red data book of Republic of Korea. Incheon: NIBR; 2019.
  25. Park SY, Kim SJ, Lee SH, Yoon BM. An experimental study on the swimming performance of pale chub (Zacco platypus). J Korea Water Resour Assoc. 2008;41(4):423-32. https://doi.org/10.3741/JKWRA.2008.41.4.423. 
  26. Pikitch EK. A tool for finding rare marine species. Science. 2018; 360(6394):1180-2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao3787. 
  27. Rees HC, Gough KC, Middleditch DJ, Patmore JRM, Maddison BC. Applications and limitations of measuring environmental DNA as indicators of the presence of aquatic animals. J Appl Ecol. 2015;52(4):827-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12467. 
  28. Rees HC, Maddison BC, Middleditch DJ, Patmore JRM, Gough KC. Review: the detection of aquatic animal species using environmental DNA - a review of eDNA as a survey tool in ecology. J Appl Ecol. 2014;51(5):1450-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12306. 
  29. Ruppert KM, Kline RJ, Rahman MS. Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: a systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2019;17:e00547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00547. 
  30. Sales NG, Wangensteen OS, Carvalho DC, Mariani S. Influence of preservation methods, sample medium and sampling time on eDNA recovery in a neotropical river. Environ DNA. 2019;1(2):119-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.14. 
  31. Shaw JL, Clarke LJ, Wedderburn SD, Barnes TC, Weyrich LS, Cooper A. Comparison of environmental DNA metabarcoding and conventional fish survey methods in a river system. Biol Conserv. 2016;197:131-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.010. 
  32. Shogren AJ, Tank JL, Andruszkiewicz E, Olds B, Mahon AR, Jerde CL, et al. Controls on eDNA movement in streams: transport, retention, and resuspension. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):5065. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05223-1. 
  33. Song HB, Baek HM. Population ecology of the common freshwater goby Rhinogobius brunneus (Pisces: Cyprinidae) in Korea. Korean J Ichthyol. 2005;17(3):195-204. 
  34. Song YK, Kim JH, Won SY, Park C. Possibility in identifying species composition of fish communities using the environmental DNA metabarcoding technique. J Korean Environ Res Tech. 2019;22(6):125-38. https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2019.22.6.125. 
  35. Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE. The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1980;37:130-7. 
  36. Wohl E. Forgotten legacies: understanding and mitigating historical human alterations of river corridors. Water Resour Res. 2019;55(7):5181-201. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024433. 
  37. Yamanaka H, Minamoto T. The use of environmental DNA of fishes as an efficient method of determining habitat connectivity. Ecol Indic. 2016;62:147-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.022. 
  38. Yoon JD, Kim JH, Park SH, Jang MH. The distribution and diversity of freshwater fishes in Korean Peninsula. Korean J Ecol Environ. 2018;51(1):71-85. https://doi.org/10.11614/KSL.2018.51.1.071.