A comparison of mangrove and estuarine fish diversity using eDNA metabarcoding and baited remote underwater visual surveys in South Africa and Mozambique

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorPeer, Nasreenen_ZA
dc.contributor.advisorVon der Heyden, Sophieen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorJanna, Jamilaen_ZA
dc.contributor.otherStellenbosch University. Faculty of Science. Dept. of Botany and Zoology.en_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-03T10:40:02Z
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-08T15:03:09Z
dc.date.available2023-11-03T10:40:02Z
dc.date.available2024-01-08T15:03:09Z
dc.date.issued2023-12
dc.descriptionThesis (MSc)--Stellenbosch University, 2023. en_ZA
dc.description.abstractENGLISH ABSTRACT: Within estuaries, mangroves and seagrass beds are critical habitats that act as nurseries and refuge areas for fishes and provide food for coastal communities. However, in southern Africa, there are knowledge gaps regarding fish diversity in 1) mangrove ecosystems and 2) under-studied estuarine bays such as Inhambane Bay, Mozambique. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding and baited remote underwater video systems (BRUVs) are used as complementary tools for biomonitoring as they provide a better insight into the presence of species and their interactions with the environment. This project investigates OTU (operational taxonomic unit) and genera richness in South Africa and Inhambane Bay using eDNA metabarcoding and BRUVs. The aims were to 1) identify whether mangrove fish diversity varies over a latitudinal gradient, 2) compare genera richness inside and outside the locally managed marine areas (LMMAs) in Inhambane Bay, and 3) compare the use of complementary tools BRUVs and eDNA in both sites. At all study sites, estuarine water was sampled and BRUVs were deployed for an hour. In South Africa, eDNA recovered 110 OTUs with 58 genera and BRUVs recovered 28 genera with only 12 common taxa detected using both methods. Fish diversity did not follow a latitudinal gradient in the mangroves as hypothesized. In Inhambane Bay, eDNA recovered 176 OTUs between the three locations. For the comparison between methods, 76 genera were recovered by metabarcoding and BRUVs only recovered 10 genera. There was no significant difference in fish diversity inside and outside the LMMAs. In both studies, the dual use of BRUVs and eDNA was valuable by detecting species unique to those methods. The results indicated a need to improve the study design, conduct more research on estuarine and mangrove fish diversity, and to improve reference databases and fish guides for southern Africa.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractAFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Geen opsomming beskikbaar.af_ZA
dc.description.versionMastersen_ZA
dc.format.extentxix, 66 pages : illustrations (some color), mapsen_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/128898
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherStellenbosch : Stellenbosch Universityen_ZA
dc.rights.holderStellenbosch Universityen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshFishes diversityen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshFishes -- Variation -- Africa, Southernen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshMetabarcodingen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshEnvironmental DNA (eDNA)en_ZA
dc.subject.lcshBaited remote underwater video (BRUV)en_ZA
dc.subject.lcshEstuarine ecologyen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshMangrove ecologyen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshFishes -- Habitat -- Inhambane Bay (Mozambique)en_ZA
dc.subject.lcshFishes -- Habitat -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subject.nameUCTDen_ZA
dc.titleA comparison of mangrove and estuarine fish diversity using eDNA metabarcoding and baited remote underwater visual surveys in South Africa and Mozambiqueen_ZA
dc.typeThesisen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
janna_comparison_2023.pdf
Size:
3.14 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Masters Degrees (Botany and Zoology)