Deep‐sea sponge derived environmental DNA analysis reveals demersal fish biodiversity of a remote Arctic ecosystem

The deep‐sea is vast, remote, and largely underexplored. However, methodological advances in environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys could aid in the exploration efforts, such as using sponges as natural eDNA filters for studying fish biodiversity. In this study, we analyzed the eDNA from 116 sponge tissue samples and compared these to 18 water eDNA samples and visual surveys obtained on an Arctic seamount. Across survey methods, we revealed approximately 30% of the species presumed to inhabit this area and 11 fish species were detected via sponge derived eDNA alone. These included commercially important fish such as the Greenland halibut and Atlantic mackerel. Fish eDNA detection was highly variable across sponge samples. Highest detection rates were found in sponges with low microbial activity such as those from the class Hexactinellida. The different survey methods also detected alternate fish communities, highlighted by only one species overlap between the visual surveys and the sponge eDNA samples. Therefore, we conclude that sponge eDNA can be a useful tool for surveying deep‐sea demersal fish communities and it synergises with visual surveys improving overall biodiversity assessments. Datasets such as this can form comprehensive baselines on fish biodiversity across seamounts, which in turn can inform marine management and conservation practices in the regions where such surveys are undertaken.

[1]  A. Davies,et al.  Beyond the tip of the seamount: Distinct megabenthic communities found beyond the charismatic summit sponge ground on an arctic seamount (Schulz Bank, Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge) , 2022, Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers.

[2]  X. Pochon,et al.  Moving environmental DNA (eDNA) technologies from benchtop to the field using passive sampling and PDQeX extraction , 2022, Environmental DNA.

[3]  A. Boetius,et al.  Biodiversity, environmental drivers, and sustainability of the global deep-sea sponge microbiome , 2022, Nature Communications.

[4]  E. E. Sigsgaard,et al.  Accumulation and diversity of airborne, eukaryotic environmental DNA , 2022, Environmental DNA.

[5]  Jun-sheng Li,et al.  eDNA metabarcoding as a promising conservation tool to monitor fish diversity in Beijing water systems compared with ground cages , 2022, Scientific Reports.

[6]  J. Middelburg,et al.  The important role of sponges in carbon and nitrogen cycling in a deep‐sea biological hotspot , 2022, Functional Ecology.

[7]  M. Kühl,et al.  Disentangling compartment functions in sessile marine invertebrates. , 2022, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[8]  Lynsey R. Harper,et al.  Environmental DNA persistence and fish detection in captive sponges , 2022, bioRxiv.

[9]  S. Knudsen,et al.  A National Scale “BioBlitz” Using Citizen Science and eDNA Metabarcoding for Monitoring Coastal Marine Fish , 2022, Frontiers in Marine Science.

[10]  S. Knudsen,et al.  Short‐term temporal variation of coastal marine eDNA , 2022, Environmental DNA.

[11]  M. Miya Environmental DNA Metabarcoding: A Novel Method for Biodiversity Monitoring of Marine Fish Communities. , 2021, Annual review of marine science.

[12]  M. Bertelsen,et al.  Airborne environmental DNA for terrestrial vertebrate community monitoring , 2021, Current Biology.

[13]  Torbjørn Ekrem,et al.  The Future of DNA Barcoding: Reflections from Early Career Researchers , 2021, Diversity.

[14]  H. Reveron,et al.  Passive sampling of environmental DNA in aquatic environments using 3D-printed hydroxyapatite samplers , 2021, bioRxiv.

[15]  J. Poulain,et al.  Evaluating sediment and water sampling methods for the estimation of deep-sea biodiversity using environmental DNA , 2021, Scientific Reports.

[16]  A. Baattrup‐Pedersen,et al.  Seasonal turnover in community composition of stream‐associated macroinvertebrates inferred from freshwater environmental DNA metabarcoding , 2021, Environmental DNA.

[17]  J. Adolf,et al.  Trawl and eDNA assessment of marine fish diversity, seasonality, and relative abundance in coastal New Jersey, USA  , 2021 .

[18]  M. Maldonado,et al.  A Microbial Nitrogen Engine Modulated by Bacteriosyncytia in Hexactinellid Sponges: Ecological Implications for Deep-Sea Communities , 2021, Frontiers in Marine Science.

[19]  A. Munguía-Vega,et al.  Integrating eDNA metabarcoding and simultaneous underwater visual surveys to describe complex fish communities in a marine biodiversity hotspot , 2021, Molecular ecology resources.

[20]  S. Domisch,et al.  Improving the reliability of eDNA data interpretation , 2021, Molecular ecology resources.

[21]  Bessey Cindy,et al.  Passive eDNA collection enhances aquatic biodiversity analysis. , 2021, Communications biology.

[22]  C. Pham,et al.  The First Cut Is the Deepest: Trawl Effects on a Deep-Sea Sponge Ground Are Pronounced Four Years on , 2020, Frontiers in Marine Science.

[23]  A. Antich,et al.  More Than Expected From Old Sponge Samples: A Natural Sampler DNA Metabarcoding Assessment of Marine Fish Diversity in Nha Trang Bay (Vietnam) , 2020, Frontiers in Marine Science.

[24]  Nicholas D. Higgs,et al.  A decade to study deep-sea life , 2020, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[25]  S. Manel,et al.  Comparing environmental DNA metabarcoding and underwater visual census to monitor tropical reef fishes , 2020, Environmental DNA.

[26]  L. Jørgensen,et al.  Responding to global warming: New fisheries management measures in the Arctic , 2020 .

[27]  T. Morganti,et al.  Trophic niche separation that facilitates co‐existence of high and low microbial abundance sponges is revealed by in situ study of carbon and nitrogen fluxes , 2020, Limnology and Oceanography.

[28]  E. Nielsen,et al.  Remote, autonomous real-time monitoring of environmental DNA from commercial fish , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[29]  Lauren M. Sassoubre,et al.  Design and Validation of Passive Environmental DNA Samplers (PEDS) using Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) and Montmorillonite Clay (MC). , 2020, Environmental science & technology.

[30]  R. Brys,et al.  eDNA‐based monitoring: Advancement in management and conservation of critically endangered killifish species , 2020 .

[31]  U. Hentschel,et al.  Microbial diversity of the glass sponge Vazella pourtalesii in response to anthropogenic activities , 2020, Conservation Genetics.

[32]  H. Buckley,et al.  A Systematic Review of Sources of Variability and Uncertainty in eDNA Data for Environmental Monitoring , 2020, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.

[33]  Richard T. Corlett,et al.  Applications of environmental DNA (eDNA) in ecology and conservation: opportunities, challenges and prospects , 2020, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[34]  Gerald H Taranto,et al.  Climate‐induced changes in the suitable habitat of cold‐water corals and commercially important deep‐sea fishes in the North Atlantic , 2020, Global change biology.

[35]  E. Harvey,et al.  eDNA metabarcoding survey reveals fine‐scale coral reef community variation across a remote, tropical island ecosystem , 2020, Molecular ecology.

[36]  A. Jamieson,et al.  Ecological variables for developing a global deep-ocean monitoring and conservation strategy , 2020, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[37]  A. Franke,et al.  On giant shoulders: how a seamount affects the microbial community composition of seawater and sponges , 2020, Biogeosciences.

[38]  T. Morganti,et al.  Size Is the Major Determinant of Pumping Rates in Marine Sponges , 2019, Front. Physiol..

[39]  I. Salter,et al.  Environmental DNA concentrations are correlated with regional biomass of Atlantic cod in oceanic waters , 2019, Communications Biology.

[40]  T. Frøslev,et al.  Using vertebrate environmental DNA from seawater in biomonitoring of marine habitats , 2019, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[41]  K. Scribner,et al.  Comparison of fish detections, community diversity, and relative abundance using environmental DNA metabarcoding and traditional gears , 2019, Environmental DNA.

[42]  M. Maldonado,et al.  Removal of deep-sea sponges by bottom trawling in the Flemish Cap area: conservation, ecology and economic assessment , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[43]  A. Davies,et al.  Spatial patterns of arctic sponge ground fauna and demersal fish are detectable in autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) imagery , 2019, Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers.

[44]  Soon-Jin Hwang,et al.  Effects of Microbial Activity and Environmental Parameters on the Degradation of Extracellular Environmental DNA from a Eutrophic Lake , 2019, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[45]  S. Mariani,et al.  Sponges as natural environmental DNA samplers , 2019, Current Biology.

[46]  Ellen Kenchington,et al.  Glass sponge grounds on the Scotian Shelf and their associated biodiversity , 2019, Marine Ecology Progress Series.

[47]  H. Spencer,et al.  Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding reveals strong discrimination among diverse marine habitats connected by water movement , 2019, Molecular ecology resources.

[48]  R. Brys,et al.  Influence of accuracy, repeatability and detection probability in the reliability of species-specific eDNA based approaches , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[49]  S. Knudsen,et al.  A checklist of the fish fauna of Greenland waters , 2018, Zootaxa.

[50]  A. Davies,et al.  Oceanographic setting and short-timescale environmental variability at an Arctic seamount sponge ground , 2018, Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers.

[51]  L. Watling,et al.  Out of Sight, But Within Reach: A Global History of Bottom-Trawled Deep-Sea Fisheries From >400 m Depth , 2018, Front. Mar. Sci..

[52]  H. H. Bruun,et al.  Algorithm for post-clustering curation of DNA amplicon data yields reliable biodiversity estimates , 2017, Nature Communications.

[53]  Michael Bunce,et al.  Ecosystem biomonitoring with eDNA: metabarcoding across the tree of life in a tropical marine environment , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[54]  J. Hestetun,et al.  A review of carnivorous sponges (Porifera: Cladorhizidae) from the Boreal North Atlantic and Arctic , 2017 .

[55]  T. Thomas,et al.  Predicting the HMA-LMA Status in Marine Sponges by Machine Learning , 2017, Front. Microbiol..

[56]  A. Olsen,et al.  Arctic Intermediate Water in the Nordic Seas, 1991–2009 , 2017 .

[57]  Paul J. McMurdie,et al.  DADA2: High resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data , 2016, Nature Methods.

[58]  L. Levin,et al.  The deep ocean under climate change , 2015, Science.

[59]  M. Collins,et al.  Trophodynamics of Protomyctophum (Myctophidae) in the Scotia Sea (Southern Ocean). , 2015, Journal of fish biology.

[60]  M. Kondoh,et al.  MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species , 2015, Royal Society Open Science.

[61]  Eske Willerslev,et al.  Environmental DNA - An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity , 2015 .

[62]  V. Tunnicliffe,et al.  Benthic grazing and carbon sequestration by deep‐water glass sponge reefs , 2015 .

[63]  J. S. Christiansen,et al.  Arctic marine fishes and their fisheries in light of global change , 2013, Global change biology.

[64]  P. Cárdenas,et al.  Taxonomy, biogeography and DNA barcodes of Geodia species (Porifera, Demospongiae, Tetractinellida) in the Atlantic boreo-arctic region , 2013 .

[65]  M. Koen-Alonso,et al.  Associations of demersal fish with sponge grounds on the continental slopes of the northwest Atlantic , 2013 .

[66]  M. Antelo,et al.  Sustainability of deep-sea fish species under the European Union Common Fisheries Policy , 2012 .

[67]  S. Holmes,et al.  Denoising PCR-amplified metagenome data , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[68]  Roberto Danovaro,et al.  Deep, diverse and definitely different: unique attributes of the world's largest ecosystem , 2010 .

[69]  J. Weisz,et al.  Do associated microbial abundances impact marine demosponge pumping rates and tissue densities? , 2008, Oecologia.

[70]  A. Klitgaard,et al.  Distribution and species composition of mass occurrences of large-sized sponges in the northeast Atlantic , 2004 .

[71]  H. Spencer,et al.  Water stratification in the marine biome restricts vertical environmental DNA (eDNA) signal dispersal , 2019, Environmental DNA.