Environmental DNA for monitoring the impact of offshore wind farms on fish and invertebrate community structures

被引:1
作者
Cornelis, Isolde [1 ]
De Backer, Annelies [1 ]
Maes, Sara [1 ]
Vanhollebeke, Joran [1 ]
Brys, Rein [2 ]
Ruttink, Tom [3 ]
Hostens, Kris [1 ]
Derycke, Sofie [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Flanders Res Inst Agr Fisheries & Food, Anim Sci Unit, Jacobsenstr 1, B-8400 Oostende, Belgium
[2] Res Inst Nat & Forest, Geraardsbergen, Belgium
[3] Flanders Res Inst Agr Fisheries & Food, Plant Sci Unit, Melle, Belgium
[4] Univ Ghent, Biol Dept, Ghent, Belgium
来源
ENVIRONMENTAL DNA | 2024年 / 6卷 / 04期
关键词
bottom trawl surveys; environmental impact assessment; false positives; North Sea; shallow marine environment; BIODIVERSITY;
D O I
10.1002/edn3.575
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
To reach the renewable energy targets set by the European Commission, a tenfold expansion of the installed offshore wind farms is needed. Since the construction of offshore wind farms may affect local soft-sediment fauna, an efficient monitoring technique is needed to monitor the potential effects on the marine ecosystem. Here, we assess whether eDNA metabarcoding is a suitable alternative to monitor fish and epibenthos biodiversity in these difficult to access marine habitats. Water sampling and trawl surveys were conducted in parallel in 12 coastal and 18 offshore sites, the latter located inside and outside two offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea. 12S eDNA metabarcoding retrieved 85.7% of the fish species caught in the beam trawls, whereas the COI eDNA metabarcoding only identified 31.4% of the epibenthic invertebrate species. Furthermore, the 12S marker resulted in an additional detection of 26 unique fish species, whereas the COI marker detected an additional 90 invertebrate species. Spatial patterns in alpha diversity recovered with eDNA metabarcoding were not significantly different from those observed with morphological determination. Significant differences were found in fish and invertebrate community structures between the coastal, transition and offshore zones as well as on the smaller wind farm scales, which agreed with the morphological beam trawl data. Indicator species found with morphological beam trawl monitoring for each of the three zones (coastal, transition, offshore) were also detected with 12S eDNA metabarcoding, and the latter method detected an additional 31 indicator species. Our findings show the need for adequate quality control of the obtained species lists and reveal that 12S eDNA metabarcoding analyses offers a useful survey tool for the monitoring of fish communities in offshore wind farms, but the used COI assay did not adequately capture the epibenthic communities as observed with beam trawl data. Offshore windfarms are marine areas that are difficult to access, and innovative monitoring techniques are needed to study their impact on marine biodiversity. Water sampling and trawl catches conducted in parallel in 30 sites in the Belgian part of the North Sea showed that 12S eDNA metabarcoding retrieved 85.7% of the fish species caught in the beam trawls, whereas the COI eDNA metabarcoding only identified 31.4% of the epibenthic invertebrate species. Significant differences were found in fish and invertebrate community structures between the coastal, transition and offshore zones as well as on the smaller wind farm scales, which agreed with the morphological beam trawl data. Our findings show that 12S eDNA metabarcoding analyses offers a useful survey tool for the monitoring of fish communities in offshore wind farms.image
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Environmental Impact Assessment for the decommissioning of offshore wind farms
    Hall, R.
    Topham, E.
    Joao, E.
    RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2022, 165
  • [2] Site and species dependent effects of offshore wind farms on fish populations
    Bicknell, Anthony W. J.
    Gierhart, Samuel
    Witt, Matthew J.
    MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, 2025, 205
  • [3] Impact of offshore wind farms on the fauna of the Baltic Sea
    Cieslewicz, Natalia
    Pilarski, Krzysztof
    Pilarska, Agnieszka Anna
    JOURNAL OF ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2025, 26 (04): : 1 - 14
  • [4] Evaluation of community science monitoring with environmental DNA for marine fish species: "Fish survey project using environmental DNA"
    Suzuki-Ohno, Yukari
    Tanabe, Akifumi S.
    Kasai, Akihide
    Masuda, Reiji
    Seino, Satoquo
    Dazai, Akihiro
    Suzuki, Shota
    Abe, Takuzo
    Kondoh, Michio
    ENVIRONMENTAL DNA, 2023, 5 (03): : 613 - 623
  • [5] Environmental DNA reveals spatial patterns of fish and plankton diversity at a floating offshore wind farm
    Hestetun, Jon Thomassen
    Ray, Jessica Louise
    Murvoll, Kari Mette
    Kjolhamar, Ane
    Dahlgren, Thomas G.
    ENVIRONMENTAL DNA, 2023, 5 (06): : 1289 - 1306
  • [6] Decommissioning of offshore wind farms and its impact on benthic ecology
    Spielmann, Vanessa
    Dannheim, Jennifer
    Brey, Thomas
    Coolen, Joop W. P.
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2023, 347
  • [7] Spatial planning of offshore wind farms: A windfall to marine environmental protection?
    Punt, Maarten J.
    Groeneveld, Rolf A.
    van Ierland, Ekko C.
    Stel, Jan H.
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2009, 69 (01) : 93 - 103
  • [8] Modelling the environmental impacts of future offshore fish farms in the inner Danish waters
    Maar, Marie
    Larsen, Janus
    Dahl, Karsten
    Riemann, Bo
    AQUACULTURE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS, 2018, 10 : 115 - 133
  • [9] Towards understanding environmental and cumulative impacts of floating wind farms: Lessons learned from the fixed-bottom offshore wind farms
    Rezaei, Fatemeh
    Contestabile, Pasquale
    Vicinanza, Diego
    Azzellino, Arianna
    OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT, 2023, 243
  • [10] Zooplankton Community Responses and the Relation to Environmental Factors from Established Offshore Wind Farms within the Rudong Coastal Area of China
    Wang, Teng
    Yu, Wenwen
    Zou, Xinqing
    Zhang, Dongju
    Li, Baojie
    Wang, Junjie
    Zhang, Hu
    JOURNAL OF COASTAL RESEARCH, 2018, 34 (04) : 843 - 855