Back

eDNA reveals urban habitat-specific sorting of a mixed regional fish fauna into distinct biodiversity and life-history assemblages

Zapfe, K. L.; Parker, E.; Elias, D.; Hogue, G. M.; Dornburg, A.

2026-08-31 ecology
10.64898/2026.08.29.748007 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Urbanization is reshaping freshwater ecosystems, with well-documented effects across gradients of land-use change, hydrologic alteration, and habitat degradation. However, how biodiversity is organized among neighboring urban aquatic habitats that differ in hydrologic connectivity, disturbance transmission, residence time, management history, and opportunities for species movement is often less clear. This creates a challenge for interpreting urban fish communities at local scales as species occurrence may reflect both contemporary habitat filtering and historical contingencies including native persistence, interbasin transfer, stocking, and nonindigenous introductions. Here we use eDNA detections, historical records, phylogenetic information, and species trait data to investigate the fish assemblages of the Charlotte metropolitan region. We detect a highly mixed fauna that also depicts a strong signature of structured biodiversity profiles across taxonomic, phylogenetic, functional, and life-history dimensions between habitat types. In particular, bounded habitats contained assemblages with larger-bodied species that are fecund and faster to reproduce relative to free-flowing habitats. Species-level occurrence models did not support a simple trait-by-habitat rule. Instead our results demonstrate that urban aquatic habitats can sort historically mixed regional species pools into predictable assemblage-level life-history profiles while simultaneously retaining signatures of evolutionary and historical biogeographic contingency.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.