Getting to the core of the matter: Assessing the role of replication in sedimentary DNA metabarcoding
Banos Lara, E.; Ras Segura, C.; de Boer, E. J.; Cundy, A. B.; Turon Barrera, X.; Nogue, S.; Holman, L. E.; Rius, M.
Show abstract
Replication is central to most experimental and sampling designs, increasing inferential power and capturing fine-scale data heterogeneity. However, its importance remains poorly evaluated in some ecological and evolutionary settings. This is the case of metabarcoding studies using DNA recovered from sedimentary archives, in which biological signals may integrate ecological information through depositional and burial processes, and are often inferred from a single sediment core per site. Here, we evaluated the effect of different types of replication using sedimentary DNA (sedaDNA) metabarcoding data from two genetic markers (mitochondrial COI and nuclear 18S), under a nested sampling design. The design included three intertidal sites, three spatially separated sediment cores per site (biological replicates), two sediment depth horizons per core, and eight PCR (technical) replicates per sediment sample. Variance partitioning showed that site identity and sediment age group together explained >70% of the variation in beta diversity, indicating that among-site spatial variation and stratigraphic variation were the dominant drivers of community composition. In contrast, variation among different cores within sites was small and non-significant (<5%). Among PCR replicates from the same sediment sample, richness varied substantially, whereas Shannon diversity was more consistent. Despite this variability, differences in community composition among technical replicates remained smaller than among biological replicates and site identity, indicating limited influence on broader ecological patterns. Community composition was highly similar among replicate cores within sites, consistent with stratigraphic coherence. These results indicate limited within-site heterogeneity and suggest that, under stratigraphically coherent conditions, increasing biological replication may yield limited additional information, whereas enhancing technical replication and stratigraphic resolution can improve ecological inference from sedaDNA metabarcoding datasets.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Decision making and best practices for taxonomy-free eDNA metabarcoding in biomonitoring using Hill numbers 92%
- Eukaryotic biodiversity and ecological networks from the surface to the mesopelagic in the Northwest Atlantic Slope Water 92%
- Meta-analysis shows both congruence and complementarity of DNA metabarcoding to traditional methods for biological community assessment 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Shotgun metagenomics of soil invertebrate communities reflects taxonomy, biomass and reference genome properties 91%
- A tale of two lakes: divergent evolutionary trajectories of two Daphnia populations experiencing distinct environments 90%
- Considerations for metabarcoding-based port biological baseline surveys aimed at marine non-indigenous species monitoring and risk-assessments 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding differentiates between micro-habitats within the rocky intertidal 92%
- Environmental DNA reveals invasive crayfish microbial associates and ecosystem-wide biodiversity before and after eradication 92%
- Recovering short DNA fragments from minerals and marine sediments: a comparative study evaluating lysis and isolation approaches 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Watered-down biodiversity? A comparison of metabarcoding results from DNA extracted from matched water and bulk tissue biomonitoring samples 92%
- eDNA Captures Microhabitat Partitioning in a Kelp Forest Ecosystem 90%
- Haplotype-level metabarcoding of freshwater macroinvertebrate species: a prospective tool for population genetic analysis 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.