This is a test site. The production site with full data is available at GBIF.org
{{nav.loginGreeting}}
  • ツール
    • 出版者

      • データ検証ツール
    • ユーザー

      • 派生データセット
      • ツールカタログ
    • GBIFラボ

      • 種名マッチングツール
      • 学名解析ツール
      • 配列ID
      • 関連した観察傾向
  • User profile

COI data from: Environmental DNA metabarcoding differentiates between micro-habitats within the rocky intertidal (Shea & Boehm, 2024)

Citation

Shea M M, Boehm A B (2024). COI data from: Environmental DNA metabarcoding differentiates between micro-habitats within the rocky intertidal (Shea & Boehm, 2024). Version 1.5. United States Geological Survey. Occurrence dataset. https://ipt-obis.gbif.us/resource?r=shea_boehm_2024&v=1.5 https://doi.org/10.15468/33artc accessed via GBIF.org on 2025-09-24. accessed via GBIF.org on 2025-10-13.

Description

This is mitochondrial Cytochrome c Oxidase I gene (COI) metabarcoding data of surface seawater metazoan communities from three distinct locations in the rocky intertidal, Pillar Point, Half Moon Bay, California, USA that were sampled over one tidal exposure period on 28 January 2022. This work is associated with a publication in Environmental DNA (https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.521).

[This dataset was processed using the GBIF eDNA converter tool.]

Purpose

Abstract: While the utility of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding surveys for biodiversity monitoring continues to be demonstrated, the spatial and temporal variability of eDNA, and thus the limits of the differentiability of an eDNA signal, remains under-characterized. In this study, we collected eDNA samples from distinct micro-habitats (~40 m apart) in a rocky intertidal ecosystem over their exposure period in a tidal cycle. During this period, the micro-habitats transitioned from being interconnected, to physically isolated, to interconnected again. Using a well-established eukaryotic (cytochrome oxidase subunit I) metabarcoding assay, we detected 415 species across 28 phyla. Across a variety of univariate and multivariate analyses, using exclusively taxonomically-assigned data as well as all detected amplicon sequence variants (ASVs), we identified unique eDNA signals from the different micro-habitats sampled. This differentiability paralleled expected ecological gradients and increased as the sites became more physically disconnected. Our results demonstrate that eDNA biomonitoring can differentiate micro-habitats in the rocky intertidal only 40 m apart, that these differences reflect known ecology in the area, and that physical connectivity informs the degree of differentiation possible. These findings showcase the potential power of eDNA biomonitoring to increase the spatial and temporal resolution of marine biodiversity data, aiding research, conservation, and management efforts.

Sampling Description

Study Extent

53 water samples were collected in the rocky intertidal at Pillar Point, Half Moon Bay, California, USA on 28 January 2022. Within Pillar Point, we sampled at three discrete locations: two individual tide pools with a range of physical connectivity (Tide Pool 1, S1: 37.495306°, -122.498744°; Tide Pool 2, S2: 37.494992°, -122.498955°) and an equidistant location (Nearshore, N: 37.495288°, -122.499198°) where there was well-mixed offshore water for the duration of the tidal cycle. All three locations are about 40 meters apart from one another, and are fully isolated at low ride but otherwise interconnected. Ecologically, S1 is more characteristic of the high intertidal, and S2 is more characteristic of the low intertidal. The locationID field identifies the three specific samples locations.

Sampling

We collected 1 L surface samples from each site every 30 minutes for the duration of time the rocky intertidal was exposed on 28 January 2022, using single-use enteral feeding pouches (Covidien, Dublin, Ireland). The sampling volume used, 1 L, has been shown to be sufficient for detecting a representative range of marine organisms in nearshore locations and is commonly used in aquatic eDNA studies. Sampling commenced at 11:30 PST; at each site, samples were collected from a consistent position across time points. We attached a sterile 0.22 μm pore size Sterivex cartridge (MilliporeSigma, Burlington, MA, USA) to the tubing of each feeding pouch, allowing samples to be immediately gravity filtered in the field. While gravity filtering (1-2 hours per sample), samples were shaded with an awning to prevent any degradation by sunlight. One sample fell during gravity filtration, resulting in a missing sample from S1 at 16:00 PST. At three time points at the beginning and end of the sampling period as well as at low tide (at 14:00 PST), we collected triplicate 1 L samples from each location as biological replicates. At the beginning and end of the sampling period, we also filtered 1 L MilliQ water via the procedure described above to serve as negative field controls. Additionally, using an Orion Model 1230 meter (Orion Research Inc., Beverly, MA, USA), we recorded temperature and salinity in each location directly after samples were collected. Once finished filtering, Sterivex cartridges were dried by pushing air through them using a sterile 3 mL syringe, capped, placed in sterile Whirl-Pak bags (Whirl-Pak, Madison, WI, USA). Then, samples were stored in a cooler on ice until transported back to the laboratory at the end of the sampling period. Samples were transferred to a -20°C freezer for up to 18 days, at which time they were processed to extract nucleic acids from the captured materials. This sampling scheme resulted in 53 field samples, processed as technical replicates in the laboratory (resulting in the 159 events published here).

Method steps

  1. Environmental DNA Field Sampling and Gravity Filtration: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bp2l69y7klqe/v2
  2. DNA Extraction from Sterivex Filters: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.ewov1qyyygr2/v1
  3. COI PCR Amplification: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.dm6gp3wpdvzp/v1
  4. Library Preparation & Sequencing: conducted by the Georgia Genomics and Bioinformatics Core (GGBC, UG Athens, GA, RRID:SCR_010994); see https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.03.551543 for more methodological details
  5. Bioinformatics: using the Anacapa Toolkit; see https://10.5281/zenodo.8201140 for our modified version of the toolkit and https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.03.551543 for more methodological details
  6. Data Analysis: see https://github.com/meghanmshea/intertidal-eDNA (archived version: https://10.5281/zenodo.8213050)

Taxonomic Coverages

N/A
  1. Arthropoda
    rank: phylum
  2. Dinophyceae
    rank: class
  3. Chromista
    rank: kingdom
  4. Nemertea
    rank: phylum
  5. Palaeonemertea
    rank: class
  6. Haptophyta
    rank: phylum
  7. Clitellata
    rank: class
  8. Bolidophyceae
    rank: class
  9. Pyramimonadophyceae
    rank: class
  10. Polychaeta
    rank: class
  11. Hexacorallia
    rank: class
  12. Phaeophyceae
    rank: class
  13. Fungi
    rank: kingdom
  14. Aves
    rank: class
  15. Mucoromycotina incertae sedis
    rank: class
  16. Ascidiacea
    rank: class
  17. Cryptophyta incertae sedis
    rank: class
  18. Myzozoa
    rank: phylum
  19. Pycnogonida
    rank: class
  20. Homoscleromorpha
    rank: class
  21. Zygomycota
    rank: phylum
  22. Dothideomycetes
    rank: class
  23. Oomycota
    rank: phylum
  24. Gastropoda
    rank: class
  25. Echinodermata
    rank: phylum
  26. Mollusca
    rank: phylum
  27. Demospongiae
    rank: class
  28. Bangiophyceae
    rank: class
  29. Eurotatoria
    rank: class
  30. Pilidiophora
    rank: class
  31. Animalia
    rank: kingdom
  32. Discosea
    rank: class
  33. Protozoa
    rank: kingdom
  34. Ascomycota
    rank: phylum
  35. Pelagophyceae
    rank: class
  36. Compsopogonophyceae
    rank: class
  37. Gymnolaemata
    rank: class
  38. Platyhelminthes
    rank: phylum
  39. Elasmobranchii
    rank: class
  40. Chloropicophyceae
    rank: class
  41. Copepoda
    rank: class
  42. Echinoidea
    rank: class
  43. Bacillariophyta
    rank: phylum
  44. Bacillariophyceae
    rank: class
  45. Scyphozoa
    rank: class
  46. Ophiuroidea
    rank: class
  47. Malacostraca
    rank: class
  48. Bryozoa
    rank: phylum
  49. Holothuroidea
    rank: class
  50. Hydrozoa
    rank: class
  51. Hexapoda
    rank: class
  52. Mamiellophyceae
    rank: class
  53. Rotifera
    rank: phylum
  54. Raphidophyceae
    rank: class
  55. Annelida
    rank: phylum
  56. Florideophyceae
    rank: class
  57. Hoplonemertea
    rank: class
  58. Chordata
    rank: phylum
  59. Rhodophyta
    rank: phylum
  60. Amoebozoa
    rank: phylum
  61. Bivalvia
    rank: class
  62. Coccolithophyceae
    rank: class
  63. Mammalia
    rank: class
  64. Microbotryomycetes
    rank: class
  65. Chlorophyta
    rank: phylum
  66. Dictyochophyceae
    rank: class
  67. Cryptophyta
    rank: phylum
  68. Lecanoromycetes
    rank: class
  69. Porifera
    rank: phylum
  70. Plantae
    rank: kingdom
  71. Thecostraca
    rank: class
  72. Basidiomycota
    rank: phylum
  73. Polyplacophora
    rank: class
  74. Phoronida
    rank: phylum
  75. Ochrophyta
    rank: phylum
  76. NA
    rank: class
  77. Cephalopoda
    rank: class
  78. Branchiopoda
    rank: class
  79. Hexactinellida
    rank: class
  80. Asteroidea
    rank: class
  81. Teleostei
    rank: class
  82. Cnidaria
    rank: phylum

Geographic Coverages

Pillar Point, Half Moon Bay, California, USA

Bibliographic Citations

  1. Shea, M. M., & Boehm, A. B. (2024). Environmental DNA metabarcoding differentiates between micro-habitats within the rocky intertidal. Environmental DNA. - https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.521

Contacts

Meghan M. Shea
originator
position: PhD Candidate
Stanford University
Stanford
CA
US
email: mshea@stanford.edu
userId: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7419-6654
Alexandria B. Boehm
originator
position: Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Stanford University
Stanford
CA
US
email: aboehm@stanford.edu
userId: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8162-5090
Meghan M. Shea
metadata author
position: PhD Candidate
Stanford University
Stanford
CA
US
email: mshea@stanford.edu
userId: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7419-6654
Meghan M. Shea
processor
position: PhD Candidate
Stanford University
Stanford
CA
US
email: mshea@stanford.edu
userId: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7419-6654
Alexandria B. Boehm
principal investigator
position: Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Stanford University
Stanford
CA
US
email: aboehm@stanford.edu
userId: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8162-5090
Meghan M. Shea
administrative point of contact
position: PhD Candidate
Stanford University
Stanford
CA
US
email: mshea@stanford.edu
userId: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7419-6654
GBIFとは API よくある質問 ニュースレター プライバシーポリシー 利用規約 引用 行動規範 謝辞
コンタクト GBIF Secretariat Universitetsparken 15 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø Denmark
GBIF is a Global Core Biodata Resource