Community-based eDNA metabarcoding for monitoring fish biodiversity and food webs in the Peace-Athabasca Delta


Abstract

The Peace-Athabasca Delta (PAD) is the largest freshwater inland delta in North America, and it holds Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) as part of the Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) World Heritage Site (UNESCO). The health of the PAD and its OUV was questioned by the Mikisew Cree First Nation in a petition to UNESCO in 2014. In response, UNESCO directed Canada to take a series of actions to determine if WBNP should be listed World Heritage in danger. Canada created the WBNP Action Plan (2018), where a key action was to assess the condition of WBNP’s OUV with local First Nations . The waters of the delta have been and remain the habitat of essential fishery resources for the Indigenous Communities in the area. There is, however, limited scientific data available concerning the abundance and distribution of fish, their health, and the structure of the food webs that support them within the PAD. Thus, innovative molecular techniques, such as environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding, can enhance existing capture-based sampling methods for assessing and monitoring freshwater ecosystems. A pilot project was conducted in the summer and fall of 2021 to evaluate the potential utility of molecular tools in addressing key knowledge gaps regarding fish diversity, distribution, and contributing to the collaborative Integrated Research and Monitoring Program’s assessment of PAD health. In this context, eDNA metabarcoding methods were employed to assess community diversity from traces of DNA that organisms shed into the aquatic environment or release during digestion (prey DNA). Samples were collected in collaboration with local Indigenous Governments, specifically the Athabasca Chipewyan and Mikisew Cree First Nations’ Community-Based Monitoring (CBM) technical staff and the Mikisew Cree Land-Users Advocacy Network (LUAN), Parks Canada, and the Genomic Network for Fish Identification, Stress and Health (GEN-FISH). Using two different mitochondrial markers (COI and 12S), the eDNA metabarcoding studies detected a combined total of 15 fish species known to inhabit PAD waters, with different distributions noted among the 15 different sampling locations. Differential performance in fish detection was observed between the molecular markers used, with 12S providing greater specificity for fish and COI providing broader taxonomic coverage, detecting a diversity of birds, mammals, and invertebrates from the region. Similarly, DNA metabarcoding analysis of stomach contents of Lake Whitefish ( Coregonus clupeaformis ) detected nine of 19 previously reported diet items, including all the primary known diet items for Lake Whitefish, except Sphaeriids and Pontoporeia. The above results highlight the utility and readiness level of the molecular tools developed by GEN-FISH for conducting fish surveys and assessing food webs in freshwater at sites surrounding Fort Chipewyan.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].