Understanding Biodiversity at the Pondscape Using Environmental
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/278309; this version posted March 7, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Understanding biodiversity at the pondscape using 2 environmental DNA: a focus on great crested newts 3 4 Lynsey R. Harper1*, Lori Lawson Handley1, Christoph Hahn1,2, Neil 5 Boonham3,4, Helen C. Rees5, Erin Lewis3, Ian P. Adams3, Peter 6 Brotherton6, Susanna Phillips6 and Bernd Hänfling1 7 8 1School of Environmental Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK 9 2Institute of Zoology, University of Graz, Graz, Styria, Austria 10 3Fera, Sand Hutton, York, YO14 1LZ, UK 11 4Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK 12 5ADAS, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington 13 Campus, Leicestershire, LE12 5RD, UK 14 6 Natural England, Peterborough, PE1 1NG, UK 15 16 17 *Corresponding author: 18 Email: [email protected] 19 20 Word count: 9,563 words 21 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/278309; this version posted March 7, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 22 eDNA metabarcoding represents a new tool for community biodiversity assessment 23 in a broad range of aquatic and terrestrial habitats. However, much of the existing 24 literature focuses on methodological development rather than testing of ecological 25 hypotheses. Here, we use presence-absence data generated by eDNA 26 metabarcoding of over 500 UK ponds to examine: 1) species associations between 27 the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) and other vertebrates, 2) determinants of 28 great crested newt occurrence at the pondscape, and 3) determinants of vertebrate 29 species richness at the pondscape. The great crested newt was significantly 30 associated with nine vertebrate species. Occurrence in ponds was broadly reduced 31 by more fish species, but enhanced by more waterfowl and other amphibian species. 32 Abiotic determinants (including pond area, depth, and terrestrial habitat) were 33 identified, which both corroborate and contradict existing literature on great 34 crested newt ecology. Some of these abiotic factors (pond outflow) also determined 35 species richness at the pondscape, but other factors were unique to great crested 36 newt (pond area, depth, and ruderal habitat) or the wider biological community 37 (pond density, macrophyte cover, terrestrial overhang, rough grass habitat, and 38 overall terrestrial habitat quality) respectively. The great crested newt Habitat 39 Suitability Index positively correlated with both eDNA-based great crested newt 40 occupancy and vertebrate species richness. Our study is one of the first to use eDNA 41 metabarcoding to test abiotic and biotic determinants of pond biodiversity. eDNA 42 metabarcoding provided new insights at scales that were previously unattainable 43 using established methods. This tool holds enormous potential for testing ecological 44 hypotheses alongside biodiversity monitoring and pondscape management. 45 Freshwater ecosystems comprise <1% of the Earth’s surface but provide vital 2 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/278309; this version posted March 7, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 46 ecosystem services and are hotspots of biodiversity1–3. Nonetheless, freshwater 47 organisms are experiencing a greater rate of decline than marine or terrestrial 48 organisms2,3. Ponds especially represent critical habitat for biodiversity in a fragmented 49 landscape4 and support many rare and protected species5, such as the great crested newt 50 (Triturus cristatus) which is protected by UK and European legislation at all life 51 stages5,6. Ponds contribute substantially to regional- and landscape-scale aquatic 52 biodiversity5,7–9 as well as non-aquatic biodiversity within pondscapes, i.e. a pond, its 53 immediate catchment, and the terrestrial matrix of land between ponds5. Until recently, 54 pondscapes were poorly understood5 and neglected in research, scientific monitoring, 55 and policy4,7,8. Effective management of pondscapes requires knowledge of abiotic and 56 biotic factors that influence biodiversity, community structure and productivity. 57 Moreover, the biodiversity that ponds support individually and in combination must be 58 examined, but can only be maintained if stressors and threats to these systems are 59 understood4,5,7,8,10. Exhaustive sampling of pond biodiversity is impeded by the 60 complexity of these species-rich habitats, and numerous tools required for different taxa 61 with associated bias11 and cost12. However, large-scale community-level monitoring, 62 encompassing alpha (site), beta (between-site) and gamma (landscape) diversity 63 analyses, is necessary to understand biodiversity in changing environments13. 64 Analysis of environmental DNA (eDNA, i.e. DNA released by organisms via 65 skin cells, saliva, gametes, urine and faeces into the environment) is providing 66 ecologists with exceptional power to detect single species or describe whole 67 communities14–18. The great crested newt was the first and to date only UK protected 68 species to be routinely monitored using eDNA analysed with targeted real-time 69 quantitative PCR (qPCR)19. However, entire communities can be monitored using 70 High-Throughput Sequencing, i.e. eDNA metabarcoding16–18. This approach has been 3 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/278309; this version posted March 7, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 71 used to estimate species richness and assess diversity along environmental 72 gradients11,20–22, but studies have typically focused on species detection and 73 methodological improvement. eDNA metabarcoding has unprecedented diagnostic 74 power to test classic ecological hypotheses relating to the distribution of biodiversity 75 and its response to environmental pressures. Ponds are ideal model systems for 76 experimental validation and examination of biogeographical patterns as small, 77 abundant ecosystems that span broad ecological gradients8; however, few eDNA 78 metabarcoding studies to date have considered ponds11,12,23–27. 79 Using ponds, we explore the potential of eDNA metabarcoding for hypothesis 80 testing. We focus on the threatened great crested newt as its ecology is well-understood. 81 Previous work established that both biotic (e.g. food availability, breeding substrate, 82 and predators) and abiotic (e.g. pond depth, area, permanence, and temperature) 83 variables strongly influence great crested newt breeding success28. These are 84 encompassed in the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) used in species surveys29,30. The 85 HSI is comprised of 10 suitability indices (factors known to influence great crested 86 newts) which are scored and combined to calculate a decimal score between 0 and 1 87 representing habitat suitability (where 1 = excellent habitat); although some research 88 suggests HSI may not relate to great crested newt occupancy31,32. Fish species may 89 negatively impact great crested newt populations28,33–40 or effects may be negligible41. 90 Larvae tend to swim in open water, increasing susceptibility to fish and waterfowl 91 predation34,36,38, and adults reportedly avoid ponds containing three-spined stickleback 92 (Gasterosteus aculeatus)42, ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius)40, crucian carp 93 (Carassius carassius)39,40, and common carp (Carassius carpio)40. Conversely, great 94 crested newts and smooth newts (Lissotriton vulgaris) are positively associated due to 95 shared habitat preferences34,37,38,40. Great crested newts are more likely in ponds with 4 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/278309; this version posted March 7, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 96 better water quality (indicated by diverse macroinvertebrate communities)29,40, higher 97 nutrient content, and warmer temperature43. Water clarity is important for breeding 98 displays, foraging success, and egg survival34,38. Higher density of ponds in a 99 pondscape creates more opportunity for great crested newt occupation33,36,37,40, but 100 presence is negatively correlated with pond surface area33. Heavily shaded ponds44, or 101 those with high macrophyte cover34,36,38, are less likely to support viable great crested 102 newt populations. Great crested newts are also dependent on terrestrial habitat, 103 preferring open, semi-rural pondscapes37 containing pasture, extensively grazed and 104 rough grassland, scrub, and coniferous and deciduous woodland29,38,40,44,45. 105 The extensive literature on established determinants