Environmental DNA as a complementary tool for biodiversity monitoring: A multi-technique and multi-trophic approach to investigate cetacean distribution and feeding ecology

65. Morato T, Hoyle SD, Allain V, Nicol SJ. Seamounts are hotspots of pelagic biodiversity in the open ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010; 107(21):9707–9711. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.0910290107 PMID: 20448197 66. Galice G. The Continental margin off Galicia and Portugal: acoustical stratigraphy, dredge stratigraphy and structural evolution. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. 1979; 47(2):633–662. 67. Gil A´ , Correia AM, Sousa-Pinto I. Records of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the mouth of the Douro River (northern Portugal) with presence of an anomalous white individual. Marine Biodiversity Records. 2019; 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41200-018-0160-3 68. Ferna´ ndez R, MacLeod CD, Pierce GJ, Covelo P, Lo´ pez A, Torres-Palenzuela J, et al. Inter-specific and seasonal comparison of the niches occupied by small cetaceans off north-west Iberia. Continental Shelf Research. 2013; 64:88–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.05.008 69. Torres-Pereira A, Ferreira M, Eira C, Lo´pez A, Sequeira M. Phocoena phocoena boto. In: Mathias ML, Fonseca C, Rodrigues L, Grilo C, Lopes-Fernandes M, Palmeirim JM, et al., editors. Livro Vermelho dos Mamı´feros em Portugal Continental. FCiências.ID, ICNF, Lisboa; 2023. 70. Miya M, Gotoh RO, Sado T. MiFish metabarcoding: a high-throughput approach for simultaneous detection of multiple fish species from environmental DNA and other samples. Fisheries Science. 2020; 86(6):939–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-020-01461-8

71. Rojahn J, Gleeson DM, Furlan E, Haeusler T, Bylemans J. Improving the detection of rare native fish species in environmental DNA metabarcoding surveys. Aquatic Conservation. 2021; 31(4):990–997. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3514 72. Visser F, Merten VJ, Bayer T, Oudejans MG, De Jonge DSW, Puebla O, et al. Deep-sea predator niche segregation revealed by combined cetacean biologging and eDNA analysis of cephalopod prey. Sci Adv. 2021; 7(14):eabi5784. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf5908 PMID: 33789903 73. Santos MB, Saavedra C, Pierce GJ. Quantifying the predation on sardine and hake by cetaceans in the Atlantic waters of the Iberian peninsula. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 2014; 106:232–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.09.040 74. Marc¸alo A, Nicolau L, Gime´ nez J, Ferreira M, Santos J, Arau´ jo H, et al. Feeding ecology of the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in Western Iberian waters: has the decline in sardine (Sardina pilchardus) affected dolphin diet? Marine Biology. 2018; 165:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-018-3285-3 75. De Pierrepont JF, Dubois B, Desormonts S, Santos MB, Robin JP. Stomach contents of English Chan- nel cetaceans stranded on the coast of Normandy. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 2005; 85(6):1539–1546. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315405012762 76. Spitz J, Chouvelon T, Cardinaud M, Kostecki C, Lorance P. Prey preferences of adult sea bass Dicen- trarchus labrax in the northeastern Atlantic: implications for bycatch of common dolphin Delphinus del-

phis. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2013; 70(2):452–461. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fss200 77. Monteiro PV. The purse seine fishing of sardine in Portuguese waters: a difficult compromise between fish stock sustainability and fishing effort. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture. 2017; 25 (3):218–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2016.1269720 78. Wise L, Silva A, Ferreira M, Silva MA, Sequeira M. Interactions between small cetaceans and the purse-seine fishery in western Portuguese waters. Scientia Marina. 2007; 71(2):405–412. https://doi. org/10.3989/scimar.2007.71n2405 79. Marc¸alo A, Katara I, Feijo´ D, Arau´jo H, Oliveira I, Santos J, et al. Quantification of interactions between the Portuguese sardine purse-seine fishery and cetaceans. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2015; 72 (8):2438–2449. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv076 80. Santos MB, Pierce GJ. The diet of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the northeast Atlantic. Oceanography and Marine Biology. 2003; 41:355–390. 81. Me´heust E, Alfonsi E, Le Me´ nec P, Hassani S, Jung JL. DNA barcoding for the identification of soft remains of prey in the stomach contents of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and harbor porpoises (Pho- coena phocoena). Marine Biology Research. 2015; 11(4):385–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000. 2014.943240 82. Gime´ nez J, Marc¸alo A, Ramı´rez F, Verborgh P, Gauffier P, Esteban R, et al. Diet of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from the Gulf of Cadiz: Insights from stomach content and stable isotope analyses.

PLoS One. 2017; 12(9):e0184673. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184673 PMID: 28898268 PLOS ONE Environmental DNA as a complementary tool for biodiversity monitoring PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300992 October 16, 2024 20 / 20