Cross-ocean patterns and processes in fish biodiversity on coral reefs through the lens of eDNA metabarcoding.

Increasing speed and magnitude of global change threaten the world's biodiversity and particularly coral reef fishes. A better understanding of large-scale patterns and processes on coral reefs is essential to prevent fish biodiversity decline but it requires new monitoring approaches. Here, we use environmental DNA metabarcoding to reconstruct well-known patterns of fish biodiversity on coral reefs and uncover hidden patterns on these highly diverse and threatened ecosystems. We analysed 226 environmental DNA (eDNA) seawater samples from 100 stations in five tropical regions (Caribbean, Central and Southwest Pacific, Coral Triangle and Western Indian Ocean) and compared those to 2047 underwater visual censuses from the Reef Life Survey in 1224 stations. Environmental DNA reveals a higher (16%) fish biodiversity, with 2650 taxa, and 25% more families than underwater visual surveys. By identifying more pelagic, reef-associated and crypto-benthic species, eDNA offers a fresh view on assembly rules across spatial scales. Nevertheless, the reef life survey identified more species than eDNA in 47 shared families, which can be due to incomplete sequence assignment, possibly combined with incomplete detection in the environment, for some species. Combining eDNA metabarcoding and extensive visual census offers novel insights on the spatial organization of the richest marine ecosystems.

Comparing Seamounts and Coral Reefs with eDNA and BRUVS Reveals Oases and Refuges on Shallow Seamounts.

Seamounts are the least known ocean biome. Considered biodiversity hotspots, biomass oases, and refuges for megafauna, large gaps exist in their real diversity relative to other ecosystems like coral reefs. Using environmental DNA metabarcoding (eDNA) and baited video (BRUVS), we compared fish assemblages across five environments of different depths: coral reefs (15 m), shallow seamounts (50 m), continental slopes (150 m), intermediate seamounts (250 m), and deep seamounts (500 m). We modeled assemblages using 12 environmental variables and found depth to be the main driver of fish diversity and biomass, although other variables like human accessibility were important. Boosted Regression Trees (BRT) revealed a strong negative effect of depth on species richness, segregating coral reefs from deep-sea environments. Surprisingly, BRT showed a hump-shaped effect of depth on fish biomass, with significantly lower biomass on coral reefs than in shallowest deep-sea environments. Biomass of large predators like sharks was three times higher on shallow seamounts (50 m) than on coral reefs. The five studied environments showed quite distinct assemblages. However, species shared between coral reefs and deeper-sea environments were dominated by highly mobile large predators. Our results suggest that seamounts are no diversity hotspots for fish. However, we show that shallower seamounts form biomass oases and refuges for threatened megafauna, suggesting that priority should be given to their protection.

Applying convolutional neural networks to speed up environmental DNA annotation in a highly diverse ecosystem.

High-throughput DNA sequencing is becoming an increasingly important tool to monitor and better understand biodiversity responses to environmental changes in a standardized and reproducible way. Environmental DNA (eDNA) from organisms can be captured in ecosystem samples and sequenced using metabarcoding, but processing large volumes of eDNA data and annotating sequences to recognized taxa remains computationally expensive. Speed and accuracy are two major bottlenecks in this critical step. Here, we evaluated the ability of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to process short eDNA sequences and associate them with taxonomic labels. Using a unique eDNA data set collected in highly diverse Tropical South America, we compared the speed and accuracy of CNNs with that of a well-known bioinformatic pipeline (OBITools) in processing a small region (60 bp) of the 12S ribosomal DNA targeting freshwater fishes. We found that the taxonomic labels from the CNNs were comparable to those from OBITools, with high correlation levels for the composition of the regional fish fauna. The CNNs enabled the processing of raw fastq files at a rate of approximately 1 million sequences per minute, which was about 150 times faster than with OBITools. Given the good performance of CNNs in the highly diverse ecosystem considered here, the development of more elaborate CNNs promises fast deployment for future biodiversity inventories using eDNA.

Benchmarking bioinformatic tools for fast and accurate eDNA metabarcoding species identification.

Bioinformatic analysis of eDNA metabarcoding data is a crucial step toward rigorously assessing biodiversity. Many programs are now available for each step of the required analyses, but their relative abilities at providing fast and accurate species lists have seldom been evaluated. We used simulated mock communities and real fish eDNA metabarcoding data to evaluate the performance of 13 bioinformatic programs and pipelines to retrieve fish occurrence and read abundance using the 12S mt rRNA gene marker. We used four indices to compare the outputs of each program with the simulated samples: sensitivity, F-measure, root-mean-square error (RMSE) on read relative abundances, and execution time. We found marked differences among programs only for the taxonomic assignment step, both in terms of sensitivity, F-measure and RMSE. Running time was highly different between programs for each step. The fastest programs with best indices for each step were assembled into a pipeline. We compared this pipeline to pipelines constructed from existing toolboxes (OBITools, Barque, and QIIME 2). Our pipeline and Barque obtained the best performance for all indices and appear to be better alternatives to highly used pipelines for analysing fish eDNA metabarcoding data when a complete reference database is available. Analysis on real eDNA metabarcoding data also indicated differences for taxonomic assignment and execution time only. This study reveals major differences between programs during the taxonomic assignment step. The choice of algorithm for the taxonomic assignment can have a significant impact on diversity estimates and should be made according to the objectives of the study.