@article{fdi:010092170,
  title = {e{DNA} {M}etabarcoding, a promising tool for monitoring aquatic biodiversity in the estuaries of {R}eunion {I}sland ({S}outh-{W}est {I}ndian {O}cean)},
  author = {{J}annel, {L}. {A}. and {G}uilhaumon, {F}ran{\c{c}}ois and {V}alade, {P}. and {C}habanet, {P}ascale and {B}orie, {G}. and {G}rondin, {H}. and {J}ourand, {P}hilippe},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{R}eunion {I}sland is in the {S}outh-{W}est {I}ndian {O}cean ({SWIO}), where all freshwater fish species are diadromous. {T}he ecological status assessments of freshwater in watersheds have revealed a continuing deterioration in these fish populations due to anthropic pressures. {I}n this context, monitoring the fish's biological sustainability is crucial to ensure the health of these estuarine ecosystems. {T}he aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of conventional electrofishing monitoring ({EF}) with the environmental {DNA} metabarcoding tool to evaluate fish biodiversity in the estuaries. {W}e measured the diversity and structure of the fish community in three estuaries with various geographical, hydrological, and anthropogenic conditions over different seasons. {T}o this end, fish were captured by {EF}, and we then isolated {DNA} from the water samples to perform bioinformatic analyses derived from e{DNA}, using the 12{S} marker. {S}tatistical analyses were carried out to compare the results of these two methods. {F}or all watersheds combined, a comparison of the results for measuring fish richness showed that e{DNA} performed significantly better than {EF}. {I}ndeed, the e{DNA} detected 31 species, whereas the {EF} detected only 12 species. {F}or both methods, we observed significant differences in community structure between watersheds, with a significant nestedness phenomenon where the fish assemblage obtained from {EF} captures is a sub-assemblage of that obtained from e{DNA}. {M}oreover, compared to {EF}, e{DNA} enabled the detection of endemic to the {M}ascarene region species (e.g., {C}otylopus acutipinnis), introduced exotic species (e.g., {O}reochromis niloticus), and species difficult to capture and identify due to their juvenile life stage through {EF} (e.g., {A}nguilla sp.). {O}ur data confirm the effectiveness of e{DNA} to detect fish species, both taxonomically and in terms of species richness and proves to be an effective tool for monitoring fish diversity of the islands of the {SWIO}.},
  keywords = {electrofishing ; environmental {DNA} ; estuaries ; fish biodiversity ; monitoring ; {R}eunion {I}sland ; {REUNION} ; {OCEAN} {INDIEN}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{E}nvironmental {DNA}},
  volume = {6},
  numero = {6},
  pages = {e70044 [18 p.]},
  ISSN = {2637-4943},
  year = {2024},
  DOI = {10.1002/edn3.70044},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010092170},
}