Published March 23, 2019 | Version v1
Dataset Open

Data from: Plant DNA metabarcoding of lake sediments: how does it represent the contemporary vegetation

  • 1. The Arctic University of Norway
  • 2. French National Centre for Scientific Research
  • 3. University of Southampton

Description

Metabarcoding of lake sediments have been shown to reveal current and past biodiversity, but little is known about the degree to which taxa growing in the vegetation are represented in environmental DNA (eDNA) records. We analysed composition of lake and catchment vegetation and vascular plant eDNA at 11 lakes in northern Norway. Out of 489 records of taxa growing within 2 m from the lake shore, 17-49% (mean 31%) of the identifiable taxa recorded were detected with eDNA. Of the 217 eDNA records of 47 plant taxa in the 11 lakes, 73% and 12% matched taxa recorded in vegetation surveys within 2 m and up to about 50 m away from the lakeshore, respectively, whereas 16% were not recorded in the vegetation surveys of the same lake. The latter include taxa likely overlooked in the vegetation surveys or growing outside the survey area. The percentages detected were 61, 47, 25, and 15 for dominant, common, scattered, and rare taxa, respectively. Similar numbers for aquatic plants were 88, 88, 33 and 62%, respectively. Detection rate and taxonomic resolution varied among plant families and functional groups with good detection of e.g. Ericaceae, Roseaceae, deciduous trees, ferns, club mosses and aquatics. The representation of terrestrial taxa in eDNA depends on both their distance from the sampling site and their abundance and is sufficient for recording vegetation types. For aquatic vegetation, eDNA may be comparable with, or even superior to, in-lake vegetation surveys and may therefore be used as an tool for biomonitoring. For reconstruction of terrestrial vegetation, technical improvements and more intensive sampling is needed to detect a higher proportion of rare taxa although DNA of some taxa may never reach the lake sediments due to taphonomical constrains. Nevertheless, eDNA performs similar to conventional methods of pollen and macrofossil analyses and may therefore be an important tool for reconstruction of past vegetation.

Notes

Files

Vegetation.csv

Files (3.7 GB)

Name Size Download all
md5:9472a0485e46b8307fa05abf6106fee8
33.2 kB Download
md5:519ce253822c17ae2e8d586debd1c53f
920.0 MB Download
md5:86b8acbcf708908b5b3001ac55e10529
939.4 MB Download
md5:e612fb69df636924d2b4cf32677bb693
890.6 MB Download
md5:7b43eac288cd6806fd3bd37348c671eb
914.5 MB Download
md5:9ead09d8540748015fde70b8a749e03a
54.8 kB Download
md5:a33749d79288dd0a03ef39444d7ae340
235.4 kB Download
md5:b14b6e8a294fcf5435921e2780c00733
9.0 kB Download
md5:5141bbef86754a461306f93927edbe64
50.1 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Related works