Next Article in Journal
Variation in the Physiological Condition of Common Coral Trout (Plectropomus leopardus) Unrelated to Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of Hepatopancreas RNA-Seq of Juvenile Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) Fed Different Starch Diets
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fishes
Volume 8
Issue 10
10.3390/fishes8100496
fishes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Environmental DNA Analysis in a River Detected a Possible Distribution of Fish Species Difficult to Capture

by
Tomoki Nakamichi
1,*,
Masahiro Ono
1,
Masatoshi Hayashi
1,
Takahiko Okamura
1,
Toshihiro Wada
2 and
Kenji Saitoh
3,*
1
KANSO TECHNOS CO., LTD., Azuchimachi 1-3-5, Chuo-ku, Osaka 541-0052, Japan
2
Institute of Environmental Radioactivity, Fukushima University, Fukushima 960-1296, Japan
3
Aquatic Life Conservation Society, Kanazawa 12-27, Kamiyazawa, Rifu 981-0121, Japan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fishes 2023, 8(10), 496; https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes8100496
Submission received: 8 September 2023 / Revised: 2 October 2023 / Accepted: 2 October 2023 / Published: 4 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Biology and Ecology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is a biological survey method that has drawn much attention in recent years. However, the results of eDNA analysis and capture surveys often do not completely match, and the validity of the eDNA analysis needs to be verified. Verification of eDNA metabarcoding was conducted in a river in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, in comparison with capture survey data. Most of the captured species were detected, and 13 uncaptured lineages (two genera and 11 species) were detected in the eDNAs. Some rare species detected in the eDNAs were also identified, including exotic eels and an endangered yet out-of-range bitterling fish. To confirm the validity of the exotic Anguilla spp. detected in eDNAs, mitochondrial Cytb sequencing was performed on captured eel specimens. All eel specimens were sequenced as the native Anguilla japonica, indicating a small biomass of the exotic species difficult to capture. Our results clearly indicated the eDNA analysis as a powerful tool for detecting possible habitats of rare fish species without disturbance to the natural environment.
Keywords:
Anguilla; conservation genetics; eDNA metabarcoding; Fukushima Prefecture; Pseudorhodeus tanago
Key Contribution: Fish metabarcoding with eDNAs from a river in northern Japan, where cool and warm water faunas merge, indicated the eDNA analysis as a powerful tool for detecting rare species and invasive species at an initial stage. The species inventory via eDNA analysis mostly covered that of capture survey, and several rare non-captured species additionally appeared in eDNAs.

1. Introduction

Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is a rapidly developing biodiversity monitoring technique that uses polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify DNA fragments released into the environment from plants, fish and animals, and helps inferring their distribution [1]. The detection of eDNAs has been possible in a variety of carriers, including water, soil, feces, air, or ancient sediments and ice cores [2,3,4]. Most of the previous eDNA studies have used water samples collected from aquatic environments such as oceans, ponds and rivers [5,6,7,8,9].
Conventional aquatic monitoring is highly invasive to captured organisms because it uses fishing gears such as cast nets, hand nets and electrofishers [10]. Furthermore, capture surveys require significant effort, time and cost [11]. Additionally, there is also the issue of data bias due to differences in the investigators’ experience, knowledge and other skills. On the one hand, eDNA analysis is a non-invasive technique that can save the time and cost of surveys per site compared to capture surveys. As such, the eDNA analysis is an important survey method that is not only used for detecting early invasions or rare species, but also for conventional monitoring in aquatic organisms [12,13,14].
The analysis of eDNAs includes two methods: one is the species-specific detection, which can be achieved by the presence/absence of the target species-specific signals [11,15,16], and the other is the eDNA metabarcoding that can comprehensively detect organisms in the sampling site [5,17,18]. The latter method has been used for many taxa, including fish [5], birds [19] and mammals [8], and is expected to complement conventional methods. Comparisons of the eDNA analysis with capture survey results have been reported, but the results of sampling surveys and the eDNA analysis are often not in complete agreement (e.g., detected by eDNA but not appeared in capture). These false-positive results might be attributable to the transport of eDNAs by water flow and the difficulty in discriminating between dead and alive individuals, which is a problem that needs to be solved in eDNA analysis [2,20]. On the other hand, false-negative results might be due to the low number of PCR replicates and the influence of PCR inhibitors.
This study deals with ichthyofaunal monitoring via eDNA analysis and capture survey in a river in the Fukushima Prefecture, Japan (Figure 1). The geography of the freshwaters of the target area of this study can be grouped into three areas: (1) the eastern Pacific Ocean side, (2) the central and (3) the western inland parts. The eastern part accommodates numerous shorter rivers originated in the Abukuma Mountains with short stretches of their middle and lower reaches. The central part consists of a single river basin (Abukuma River) from its origin on the Abukuma and the Nasu Mountains. to the middle reach. The Abukuma River is one of the large rivers in the Japanese Archipelago (6th in length and 11th in basin coverage). The river has numerous tributaries from the mountains and a large alluvial basin. The western part consists of areas with an upper reach of a large river, Agano (10th in length and 8th in basin coverage). The Agano River has diverse environments with mountain streams from the Nasu Mountains and the Oze Highland Peat Swamp, as well as springs and lakes such as Lake Inawashiro and Lake Hibara. The freshwater fish fauna of the Fukushima Prefecture is characterized by a mixture of eastern Siberian cold-water and China–Korean warm-water fish faunas. The cold-water fishes typically include salmonids, Salvelinus leucomaenis, Oncorhynchus masou and Oncorhynchus keta, stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus, cyprinid leuciscine Pseudaspius sachalinensis, etc. They have extended their ranges from the north via coastal migration, depending on the climatic conditions [21] except for Misgurnus chipisaniensis, which extended its range via a land connectivity from the Siberian region [22]. The Pacific coast of the Fukushima Prefecture is in the transition area of warm and cold currents [23]. Their occurrence in the Fukushima Prefecture is hence at or near the southern limit. Some of the warm-water fishes, such as Plecoglossus altivelis altivelis, Lateolabrax japonicus, Mugil cephalus, Rhinogobius spp., etc., also have migratory life cycles. Their distribution also has a climatic basis, and is near the northern limit. The other component of warm-water fishes, such as Carassius sp., Acheilognathus spp., Misgurnus anguillicaudatus, Cobitis spp., etc., is primary freshwater fish, extending their ranges through geological events [24].
On the other hand, non-native species disturb the integrity of the fish fauna of each river [25,26], such as the increase in population due to the propagation of Zacco platypus, Candidia temminckii, Pseudorasbora parva, Gnathopogon elongatus and Rhodeus ocellatus ocellatus, which were introduced from accompanying stocking projects. Furthermore, the outlaw stocking of non-native Micropterus spp. and Lepomis macrochirus into natural lakes, dam reservoirs and ponds threatens native fish populations, especially of warm-water primary freshwater fishes. The faunal monitoring of fish in the Fukushima Prefecture is thus needed because of its biogeographical importance yet threats by non-native species and other factors like civil engineering.
We conducted an eDNA metabarcoding study in a river in the Fukushima Prefecture in 2018 to confirm the validity of the eDNA analysis for monitoring fish assemblages in rivers of faunal mixing. In such places, the abundance of climate-driven species might attenuate toward the distribution limit. Some other species might decline due to various threats. The eDNA analysis is expected to detect those rare species. By comparing the results of the eDNA analysis and a year-round capture survey data in the same river, we evaluated the validity of the analysis results and verified the effectiveness of the eDNA analysis for biological monitoring surveys in the river.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Survey

Water samples were collected at three points (right and left banks, and the center) of a sampling site in a small river in the Fukushima Prefecture, Japan (ca. 25 km from its origin to drainage) in October 2018. The sampling site was about 16 km from the origin in an alluvial cone with 7.7‰ of slope. The river width (distance between levees) was ca. 50 m, and the flow width was ca. 10 m at the site. Approximately 1 L of water samples with two replicates were collected using polyethylene bottles, filtered through Sterivex filter cartridges (pore size 0.45 μm; Merck Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) and stored at −30 °C. As a negative control (NC), 500 mL of purified water (KENEI Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan) was filtered in the same way as the field water sample.

2.2. DNA Extraction

DNA was extracted from the filters using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The Sterivex filter was incubated at 37 °C for 30 min with 180 μL of lysozyme (FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation, Osaka, Japan). Then, a mixture of 220 μL of PBS, 200 μL of buffer AL (a part of the kit) and 20 μL of proteinase K (a part of the kit) was added and incubated at 56 °C for 30 min. The DNA was subsequently purified following the manufacturer’s protocol. After purification, DNA was eluted using 200 μL of buffer AE, which was provided with the kit.

2.3. PCR and Sequencing

The extracted DNA was subjected to 12SrRNA amplicon analysis via Illumina MiSeq sequencing (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) [27]. The first-round of PCR with 28 cycles was carried out with a 20 μL reaction volume containing 10 μL of 2 × KAPA HiFiTM HotStart ReadyMix (KAPA Biosystems, Wilmington, WA, USA), 0.6 μL of each MiFish primer, excluding the random hexamer (10 μM primer F/R) [5], 6.8 μL of sterile distilled water and 2.0 μL of DNA template. The thermal cycle profile after an initial 3 min denaturation at 95 °C was as follows: denaturation at 98 °C for 20 s; annealing at 65 °C for 15 s; and extension at 72 °C for 15 s, with a final extension at the same temperature for 5 min. The PCR product was purified using AMPureXP (PCR product: AMPure XP beads = 1:1; Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) and eluted into 20 µL of buffer EB (Qiagen). The second-round of PCR with 8 cycles was carried out in an identical reaction mixture as that of the first round, except for each 1 μL of index primers (10 μM of overhanging primers with indexed sequencing adaptor), 6.0 μL of sterile distilled H2O and template (the first-round PCR product). The thermal cycle was carried out in an identical profile with the first round except for annealing at 72 °C for 7 s and extension at 72 °C for 8 s. The second-round PCR product was then purified in the same way as the first round. Sequencing was performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol using the MiSeq Reagent Kit v2 for 2 × 250 bp PE (Illumina). The raw read obtained with MiSeq was analyzed using the method described previously [27] (Table S1).
For species barcoding, those filtered reads with no more than two nucleotide differences with the reference sequence or clustered with the references from a species were adopted. Sequences equal to or equally close to a number of species, or with three to six nucleotide differences were assigned to genera. Sequences with less than 10 reads were excluded. The species identification was first based on the MiFish pipeline [28], and then species assignment of the consensus sequences was further confirmed with Blast search on the GenBank database.
Since eDNA metabarcoding detected non-native Anguilla anguilla and Anguilla rostrata, an upstream part of mitochondrial cytochrome b (Cytb) from 18 eel specimens collected using the electrofisher (LR-20B; Smith-Root, Inc., Vancouver, WA, USA) on 31 July 2019 (n = 6) and 26 October 2021 (n = 12) in the river was sequenced and compared with published sequences [29]. Primers were L14695 on the L-strand (AATTYTTGCTCRGACTCTAACC) [30] and H15560 on the H-strand (TAGGCRAATAGGAARTATCA) [31]. Methods for obtaining high-quality reads through touch-down PCR and sequencing were based on a previous study [30].

2.4. Comparison of eDNA with Capture Data

We applied the capture survey data published by the Ministry of the Environment [32] to compare the eDNA results with the capture data in 2018, the same year as the eDNA sampling. When comparing with the capture survey results, even if a species was determined as a genus by eDNA barcoding, it was regarded to correspond, if any, to the congeneric species obtained from the capture data.

3. Results

The MiSeq paired-end sequencing yielded a total of 1,804,039 raw reads. Of these, 1,708,609 reads passed the merging process, 1,707,507 reads passed the quality filter process and 1,643,156 reads passed the denoise process (Table S1).
The filtered reads from three field samples were converged to 41 haplotypes mapping onto the database for MiFish pipeline [28] (Table S2). These haplotypes were assigned to a total of 28 lineages (eight genera and 20 species, Table 1). Some species (Cobitis sp. BIWAE type C and Cottus reinii) were identified by clustering with known sequences (Figure S1). A high sensitivity might cause false-positive results in the negative control on two commonly detected species from samples, but read counts were small (<0.2% of the samples).
Compared to the capture survey results, 16 out of 18 species and genera captured were detected via the eDNA analysis (Table 1). The eDNA analysis detected 13 lineages (two genera and 11 species) not identified in this river through the capture survey. Anguilla anguilla and Anguilla rostrata, species outside the distribution range, and Pseudaspius sachalinensis, whose southernmost distribution is in the Fukushima Prefecture, were detected [33]. Sequences of upstream 759 bp of Cytb from eel specimens tightly clustered with Anguilla japonica (Table S3, Figure S2). Pseudorhodeus tanago, an endangered and legally protected species, was also detected, but the current location was further north from the northernmost known locality [30,34]. Other species that appeared only in the eDNAs included several primary freshwater (Rhynchocypris lagowskii steindachneri, Misgurnus chipisaniensis and Lefua echigonia), migratory (Salvelinus sp., Lateolabrax japonicus, Tridentiger sp. and Takifugu alboplumbeus) and introduced (Hypomesus nipponensis and Lepomis macrochirus) elements.
Regarding the number of species detected among sampling points, 18 out of 28 commonly appeared in all three points, while four lineages were shared by two of three points (Figure 2). Coherent with the river topology, none of the species were shared in two opposite banks only. Six lineages appeared in either of one point.

4. Discussion

In this study, eDNA was able to detect almost all the species captured. Several species were detected only in eDNA samples. Lineages commonly detected on right and left banks were always also shared in the stream center (18 species in the gray-colored area in Figure 2), indicating that a distribution of free DNAs relates to the running water along river topology. This may be supporting evidence for the reliability of our eDNA analysis. The different species detected in the same sampling site at different sampling points suggests that eDNAs were not evenly distributed in the river. This may be related to the ecology of the organisms or may be an effect of false negative due to the transport of eDNAs in complex water flow in the river.
For species that were only detected through eDNA, as for native species, Rhynchocypris lagowskii steindachneri has been commonly reported [25,26], suggesting a decline in this species at the collecting site. Hypomesus nipponensis and Salvelinus sp. (Salvelinus leucomaenis) have been reported in past surveys to either be naturally distributed in rivers or to be introduced by release [25]. These species are popular as angling and the fishing cooperative had been releasing eggs or juveniles [35]. Habitats of these species are far from the water sampling site, indicating a long distance retention of river water eDNAs. This also addresses the caution of using eDNA data as some species could not occur at the exact site. Misgurnus chipisaniensis has been reported in the Fukushima Prefecture [36]. It is difficult to identify Misgurnus chipisaniensis from its external appearance, but eDNAs indicate that such species can be detected. Lefua echigonia is known to be naturally distributed in rivers from past surveys [25]. Moreover, Lefua echigonia is thought to inhabit irrigation canals and ditches around paddy fields, and such environments exist in the vicinity. Reportedly, Anguilla anguilla and Anguilla rostrata may have been mixed and released into the river during past stocking activities of Anguilla japonica seedlings [37]. A limited number of reads of these non-native eels in eDNAs and their absence among capture survey samples revealed by sequencing indicate their uncommon occurrence, if any, at the site. Lepomis macrochirus has been identified in the Fukushima Prefecture [25,26,38]. Lepomis macrochirus is expanding its habitat throughout Japan and there is a good possibility of distribution in the river. The confirmation of eDNAs of this species in the present study indicates that it is useful for the early detection of exotic species in their low biomass stage. Regarding saltwater and brackish water species, Lateolabrax japonicus and Takifugu alboplumbeus are known to migrate upstream to brackish and freshwater areas [25,39,40]. As for Tridentiger sp. detected in eDNAs, Tridentiger brevispinis has been confirmed in rivers in the Fukushima Prefecture [41]. Because the sampling site were far from the sea across a number of weirs and rapids, the highly sensitive eDNA analysis is especially useful for finding fishes without past capture records. As for rare species, Pseudaspius sachalinensis, which appeared in eDNAs yet absent from our capture survey, was collected in the past [25,26,33,42]. Although Pseudorhodeus tanago has not been confirmed in the past, its presence cannot be completely ruled out because of the existence of streams with spring water in the vicinity that Pseudorhodeus tanago prefers. Several habitats of this legally protected species have been found which locations are difficult to explain phylogeographically [30]. Illegal stocking was suspected on those newly found habitats. Further capture survey and genetic typing, if collected, are needed for confirmation. The absence of eDNAs of two species (Cottus pollux and Rhinogoboius nagoyae) indicates a limitation of this technology. It might be because of low biomass or an insufficient number of reads.
It should also be noted that non-habitant fish DNAs sometimes appear because of food consumption within the vicinity [28]. Alien eels, Hypomesus nipponensis and Lateolabrax japonicus are appreciated as foods, but the sampling site does not receive sewage from residential areas around. These areas are located over distributaries with water from the river on the alluvial cone, and have lost many of the residents after the nuclear accident. Takifugu alboplumbeus is highly toxic and can never be consumed. The presence of eDNAs of non-captured fish is thus unlikely to have been from a food source, but rather likely to have been a natural occurrence.

5. Conclusions

The eDNA analysis covered most of the species in the capture survey results, suggesting that it is useful for biological monitoring. Furthermore, it could be an effective tool for the quick detection of non-native species and rare species. On the other hand, there are some species that can be determined as a species via capture survey but are difficult to determine as a species via eDNA analysis. Therefore, the evaluation of the survey results requires further verification based on the results of previous surveys.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/fishes8100496/s1, Figure S1, Blast clustering of species containing distant haplotpypes; Figure S2, mtDNA phylogeny of eels; Table S1, Illumina read information; Table S2, haplotypes, species assignment and mapped reads; Table S3, Cytb sequences from eels.

Author Contributions

M.O. and M.H. conceived this research; M.O., M.H. and T.W. performed field work; T.O., T.N. and K.S. executed analysis; T.W. provided laboratory samples; T.N. drafted the manuscript; T.W. and K.S. reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Electrofishing of the eels was carried out under special permissions from the Fukushima Prefecture Government 1-20, 2019 and 3-16, 2021.

Data Availability Statement

The Illumina raw read data are available upon request.

Acknowledgments

Electrofishing of the eels was carried out under special permissions from the Fukushima Prefecture Government (1-20, 2019 and 3-16, 2021). Capture survey data published by the Ministry of the Environment were obtained by us under supervision of the ministry. The extraction of eDNAs, PCR and sequencing were performed by FASMAC Co., Ltd. (Kanagawa, Japan).

Conflicts of Interest

Because of a request from the Tohoku Regional Office, Ministry of the Environment, we do not disclose the exact locality of the present study to prevent the illegal capture of a legally protected bitterling fish (Pseudorhodeus tanago) identified via eDNA analysis. K.S. is a member of the editorial board of the journal and did not take any part in the review/decision process of this manuscript.

References

  1. Ruppert, K.M.; Kline, R.J.; Rahman, M.S. Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: A systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 17, e00547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Thomsen, P.F.; Willerslev, E. Environmental DNA—An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 183, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Norgaard, L.; Olesen, C.R.; Trojelsgaard, K.; Pertoldi, C.; Nielsen, J.L.; Taberlet, P.; Ruiz-Gonzalez, A.; De Barba, M.; Iacolina, L. eDNA metabarcoding for biodiversity assessment, generalist predators as sampling assistants. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 6820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lynggaard, C.; Bertelsen, M.F.; Jensen, C.V.; Johnson, M.S.; Frøslev, T.G.; Olsen, M.T.; Bohmann, K. Airborne environmental DNA for terrestrial vertebrate community monitoring. Curr. Biol. 2022, 32, 701–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Miya, M.; Sato, Y.; Fukunaga, T.; Sado, T.; Poulsen, J.Y.; Sato, K.; Minamoto, T.; Yamamoto, S.; Yamanaka, H.; Araki, H.; et al. MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: Detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2015, 2, 150088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Matsuhashi, S.; Doi, H.; Fujiwara, A.; Watanabe, S.; Minamoto, T. Evaluation of the environmental DNA method for estimating distribution and biomass of submerged aquatic plants. PLoS One 2016, 11, e0156217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brozio, S.; Manson, C.; Gourevitch, E.; Burns, T.J.; Greener, M.S.; Downie, J.R.; Hoskisson, P.A. Development and application of an eDNA method to detect the critically endangered Trinidad golden tree frog (Phytotriades auratus) in bromeliad phytotelmata. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ushio, M.; Fukuda, H.; Inoue, T.; Makoto, K.; Kishida, O.; Sato, K.; Murata, K.; Nikaido, M.; Sado, T.; Sato, Y.; et al. Environmental DNA enables detection of terrestrial mammals from forest pond water. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2017, 17, e63–e75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Orzechowski, S.C.; Frederick, P.C.; Dorazio, R.M.; Hunter, M.E. Environmental DNA sampling reveals high occupancy rates of invasive Burmese pythons at wading bird breeding aggregations in the central Everglades. PLoS One 2019, 14, e0213943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jerde, C.L.; Mahon, A.R.; Chadderton, W.L.; Lodge, D.M. “Sight-unseen” detection of rare aquatic species using environmental DNA. Conserv. Lett. 2011, 4, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Keskin, E. Detection of invasive freshwater fish species using environmental DNA survey. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2014, 56, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dejean, T.; Valentini, A.; Miquel, C.; Taberlet, P.; Bellemain, E.; Miaud, C. Improved detection of an alien invasive species through environmental DNA barcoding: The example of the American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 953–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mahon, A.R.; Jerde, C.L.; Galaska, M.; Bergner, J.L.; Chadderton, W.L.; Lodge, D.M.; Hunter, M.E.; Nico, L.G. Validation of eDNA surveillance sensitivity for detection of Asian carps in controlled and field experiments. PLoS One 2013, 8, e58316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sakata, M.K.; Maki, N.; Sugiyama, H.; Minamoto, T. Identifying a breeding habitat of a critically endangered fish, Acheilognathus typus, in a natural river in Japan. Sci. Nat. 2017, 104, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ficetola, G.F.; Miaud, C.; Pompanon, F.; Taberlet, P. Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples. Biol. Lett. 2008, 4, 423–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Yamanaka, H.; Minamoto, T. The use of environmental DNA of fishes as an efficient method of determining habitat connectivity. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 62, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kelly, R.P.; Port, J.A.; Yamahara, K.M.; Crowder, L.B. Using environmental DNA to census marine fishes in a large mesocosm. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e86175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ficetola, G.F.; Pansu, J.; Bonin, A.; Coissac, E.; Giguet-Covex, C.; De Barba, M.; Gielly, L.; Lopes, C.M.; Boyer, F.; Pompanon, F.; et al. Replication levels, false presences and the estimation of the presence/absence from eDNA metabarcoding data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2015, 15, 543–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ushio, M.; Murata, K.; Sado, T.; Nishiumi, I.; Takeshita, M.; Iwasaki, W.; Miya, M. Demonstration of the potential of environmental DNA as a tool for the detection of avian species. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Deiner, K.; Altermatt, F. Transport distance of invertebrate environmental DNA in a natural river. PLoS One 2014, 9, e88786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Goto, A. Freshwater fishes: Their grouping by life history strategy and their distribution pattern. In Freshwater Fishes in Japan: Their Distribution, Variation and Speciation; Mizuno, N., Goto, A., Eds.; Tokai University Press: Tokyo, Japan, 1987; pp. 1–15. ISBN 978-4-4860-0984-9. [Google Scholar]
  22. Shedko, S.V.; Vasil’eva, E.D. A new species of the pond loaches Misgurnus (Cobitidae) from the south of Sakhalin Island. J. Ichthyol. 2022, 62, 356–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yasuda, I. Hydrographic structure and variability in the Kuroshio-Oyashio transition area. J. Oceanogr. 2003, 59, 389–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Watanabe, K.; Tominaga, K.; Nakajima, J.; Kakioka, R.; Tabata, R. Japanese freshwater fishes: Biogeography and cryptic diversity. In Species Diversity of Animals in Japan; Motokawa, M., Kajihara, H., Eds.; Springer Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2017; pp. 183–227. ISBN 978-4-4315-6430-0. [Google Scholar]
  25. Inaba, O. Fish in the Pacific coastal waters of Fukushima Prefecture. Fukushima Seibutsu 1999, 42, 1–17. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  26. Inaba, O. Freshwater fishes of the Aizu region (Agano River system). Fukushima Seibutsu 2010, 53, 19–32. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  27. Miya, M.; Gotoh, R.O.; Sado, T. MiFish metabarcoding: A high-throughput approach for simultaneous detection of multiple fish species from environmental DNA and other samples. Fish. Sci. 2020, 86, 939–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sato, Y.; Miya, M.; Fukunaga, T.; Sado, T.; Iwasaki, W. MitoFish and MiFish pipeline: A mitochondrial genome database of fish with an analysis pipeline for environmental DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1553–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Saitoh, K.; Suzuki, N.; Ozaki, M.; Ishii, K.; Sado, T.; Morosawa, T.; Tsunagawa, T.; Tsuchiya, M. Natural habitats uncovered? – Genetic structure of known and newly found localities of the endangered bitterling Pseudorhodeus tanago (Cyprinidae). Nat. Conserv. 2017, 17, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kawaguchi, A.; Miya, M.; Nishida, M. Complete mitochondrial DNA sequence of Aulopus japonicus (Teleostei: Aulopiformes), a basal Eurypterygii: Longer DNA sequences and higher-level relationships. Ichthyol. Res. 2001, 48, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan. Radioactive Material Monitoring in the Water Environment in and around Fukushima Prefecture. Available online: https://www.env.go.jp/en/water/rmms/surveys.html (accessed on 31 July 2023).
  33. Wada, T.; Yamakawa, U.; Komaki, H.; Teramoto, W.; Takasaki, K.; Funaki, Y.; Sato, T.; Sohtome, T.; Kawata, G.; Ishii, Y.; et al. Collection records of cyprinid fish, Pseudaspius sachalinensis, from rivers in eastern Fukushima Prefecture after the nuclear power plant accident. J. Cent. Reg. Aff. Fukushima Univ. 2021, 32, 233–239. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  34. Kubota, H.; Watanabe, K.; Suguro, N.; Tabe, M.; Umezawa, K.; Watanabe, S. Genetic population structure and management units of the endangered Tokyo bitterling, Tanakia tanago (Cyprinidae). Conserv. Genet. 2010, 11, 2343–2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fukushima Freshwaters Fishing Ground Management Committee. The 21th Period, the 1st Fukushima Freshwaters Fishing Ground Management Committee Document. Available online: https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/451293.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2022). (In Japanese).
  36. Kitagawa, T.; Fujii, Y.; Koizumi, N. Origin of the two major distinct mtDNA clades of the Japanese population of the oriental weather loach Misgurnus anguillicaudatus (Teleostei: Cobitidae). Folia. Zool. 2011, 60, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Okamura, A.; Zhang, H.; Mikawa, N.; Kotake, A.; Yamada, Y.; Utoh, T.; Horie, N.; Tanaka, S.; Oka, H.P.; Tsukamoto, K. Decline in non-native freshwater eels in Japan: Ecology and future perspectives. Environ. Biol. Fish. 2008, 81, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kawaguchi, T.; Nihei, A.; Kurita, S. The invaders in the Abukuma River-The actual habitat of alien species, especially non-native fish. In Proceedings of the Technical Research Presentations within the Jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism’s Tohoku Regional Development Bureau in 2009, Sendai, Japan, 25 June 2009. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kato, A.; Maeno, Y.; Hirose, S. Brief migration of the grass puffer, Takifugu niphobles, to fresh water from salt water. Ichthyol. Res. 2010, 57, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Miyake, Y.; Itakura, H.; Takeshige, A.; Onda, H.; Yamaguchi, A.; Yoneta, A.; Arai, K.; Hane, Y.V.; Kimura, S. Multiple habitat use of Japanese sea bass Lateolabrax japonicus in the estuary region of the Tone River system, implied by stable isotope analysis. Ichthyol. Res. 2019, 66, 172–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ishii, Y.; Matsuzaki, S.S.; Hayashi, S. Data on 137Cs concentration factor of freshwater fish and aquatic organisms in lake and river ecosystems. Data Brief 2020, 28, 105043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tokui, T. Notes on the kokanee salmon in Tagokura Reservoir, Fukushima Pref., north Japan. Sci. Rep. Hokkaido Salmon Hatch. 1974, 28, 33–36. [Google Scholar]
Fishes 08 00496 g001
Figure 1. Formation and structure of the Japanese freshwater fish fauna and a schematic illustration of near-surface current in the Kuroshio–Oyashio transition area, cited and modified from previous reviews [23,24]. OY, Oyashio current (blue arrow); KR, Kuroshio current (red arrow). Black arrows show hypothetical dispersal routes into the Japanese Archipelago in the Neogene.
Figure 1. Formation and structure of the Japanese freshwater fish fauna and a schematic illustration of near-surface current in the Kuroshio–Oyashio transition area, cited and modified from previous reviews [23,24]. OY, Oyashio current (blue arrow); KR, Kuroshio current (red arrow). Black arrows show hypothetical dispersal routes into the Japanese Archipelago in the Neogene.
Fishes 08 00496 g001
Fishes 08 00496 g002
Figure 2. Venn diagram showing the number of species that appeared in the eDNAs at three sampling points and detection overlap.
Figure 2. Venn diagram showing the number of species that appeared in the eDNAs at three sampling points and detection overlap.
Fishes 08 00496 g002
Table 1. Correspondence between reads obtained from eDNA metabarcoding and capture data. In the capture data, (+) indicates species captured and (−) indicates species not captured.
Table 1. Correspondence between reads obtained from eDNA metabarcoding and capture data. In the capture data, (+) indicates species captured and (−) indicates species not captured.
eDNACapture Data
Scientific NameLeft BankCenter of FlowRight BankNC *1
Lethenteron sp. N00110+
Anguilla japonica741712579118370+
Anguilla anguilla665692810−
Anguilla rostrata03600−
Cyprinus carpio1389711239283900+
Carassius cuvieri *2057811580+
Carassius langsdorfii *2382559000+
Pseudorhodeus tanago372316643990−
Zacco platypus4585337922398560+
Candidia temminckii2288928735392630+
Rhynchocypris lagowskii steindachneri03122460−
Pseudaspius hakonensis30221721199720545224+
Pseudaspius sachalinensis2832900−
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus235644210480+
Misgurnus chipisaniensis111821630−
Cobitis sp. BIWAE type C10929820197720+
Lefua echigonia57406268802416140−
Hypomesus nipponensis1353481080−
Plecoglossus altivelis altivelis1128194331880+
Oncorhynchus keta1057253422450+
Oncorhynchus masou *22787959495420+
Salvelinus sp. 011000−
Lateolabrax japonicus978000−
Lepomis macrochirus *23512887230−
Cottus reinii *260517100+
Cottus pollux0000+
Tridentiger sp.1045281123590−
Rhinogobius fluviatilis *2481101104931064680+
Rhinogobius nagoyae0000+
Takifugu alboplumbeus026200−
*1 Negative control. *2 Species assigned to generic level via the eDNA analysis, and confirmed through the capture data.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nakamichi, T.; Ono, M.; Hayashi, M.; Okamura, T.; Wada, T.; Saitoh, K. Environmental DNA Analysis in a River Detected a Possible Distribution of Fish Species Difficult to Capture. Fishes 2023, 8, 496. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes8100496

AMA Style

Nakamichi T, Ono M, Hayashi M, Okamura T, Wada T, Saitoh K. Environmental DNA Analysis in a River Detected a Possible Distribution of Fish Species Difficult to Capture. Fishes. 2023; 8(10):496. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes8100496

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nakamichi, Tomoki, Masahiro Ono, Masatoshi Hayashi, Takahiko Okamura, Toshihiro Wada, and Kenji Saitoh. 2023. "Environmental DNA Analysis in a River Detected a Possible Distribution of Fish Species Difficult to Capture" Fishes 8, no. 10: 496. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes8100496

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop