Insights into the representativeness of biodiversity assessment in large reservoir through eDNA metabarcoding

33. Porter TM, Hajibabaei M (2018) Automated high throughput animal CO1 metabarcode classification. Sci Rep 8:4226 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22505-4 PMID: 29523803 34. Machida RJ, Leray M, Ho S-L, Knowlton N (2017) Metazoan mitochondrial gene sequence reference datasets for taxonomic assignment of environmental samples. Sci Data 4:170027 https://doi.org/10. 1038/sdata.2017.27 PMID: 28291235 35. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–410 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 PMID: 2231712 36. Sayers EW, Beck J, Bolton EE, et al (2021) Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnol- ogy Information. Nucleic Acids Res 49:D10–D17 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa892 PMID: 33095870 37. Oksanen Jari, et al. (2013) Package ‘vegan’. Community ecology package, version 2. 9: 1–295. 38. Smith EP, van Belle G (1984) Nonparametric Estimation of Species Richness. Biometrics 40:119 39. Wickham H, Chang W Package ‘ggplot2’. R package version 1.0.0. 40. Kassambara A, Mundt F (2016) Package ‘factoextra”.’ 41. R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical ## computing. Foundation for Statis- tical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 42. Jombart T (2008) adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformat- ics 24:1403–1405 43. Dixon P (2003) VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. Journal of Vegetation Sci- ence 14:927–930 44. de Almeida FVR, N O Jr., Branco LHZ (2011) Flora de comunidades de macroalgas lo´ ticas de fragmen-

tos florestais remanescentes da região noroeste do Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Hoehnea 38:553–568 45. Magalhães C, Bueno SLS, Bond-Buckup G, Valenti WC, da Silva HLM, Kiyohara F, et al (2005) Exotic species of freshwater decapod crustaceans in the state of São Paulo, Brazil: records and possible causes of their introduction. Biodivers Conserv 14:1929–1945 46. Stefani PM (2006) Ecologia tro´fica de espe´cies alo´ ctones (Cichla cf. ocellaris e Plagioscion squamosis- simus) e nativa (Geophagus brasiliensis) nos reservato´rios do rio Tietê. 47. Ferraz KMPMDB, Ferraz SFDB, Moreira JR, Couto HTZ, Verdade LM (2007) Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) distribution in agroecosystems: a cross-scale habitat analysis. J Biogeogr 34:223–230 48. Pessotto MA, Nogueira MG (2018) More than two decades after the introduction of Limnoperna fortunei (Dunker 1857) in La Plata Basin. Brazilian Journal of Biology 78:773–784 https://doi.org/10.1590/1519- 6984.180789 PMID: 29340533 49. Goldberg CS, Turner CR, Deiner K, et al (2016) Critical considerations for the application of environ- mental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods Ecol Evol 7:1299–1307 50. Carvalho C. S., De Oliveira M. E., Rodriguez-Castro K. G., Saranholi B. H., & Galetti P. M. Jr (2022). Efficiency of eDNA and iDNA in assessing vertebrate diversity and its abundance. Molecular Ecology Resources, 22(4), 1262–1273. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13543 PMID: 34724330 51. Campanha PMGDC, Matsumoto AA, Brazão ML, Basilio LM, Maruyama LS(2019) Length and weight

relationships and biological aspects for 34 fish species from Três Irmãos reservoir, lower Tietê river basin, SP - Brazil. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca. 52. Kullander SO, de Lucena CAS (2006) A review of the species of Crenicichla (Teleostei: Cichlidae) from the Atlantic coastal rivers of southeastern Brazil from Bahia to Rio Grande do Sul States, with descrip- tions of three new species. Neotropical Ichthyology 4:127–146 53. Maruyama A., Sugatani K., Watanabe K., Yamanaka H., & Imamura A. (2018). Environmental DNA analysis as a non-invasive quantitative tool for reproductive migration of a threatened endemic fish in rivers. Ecology and Evolution, 8(23), 11964–11974. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4653 PMID: 30598791 54. Troth C. R., Sweet M. J., Nightingale J., & Burian A. (2021). Seasonality, DNA degradation and spatial heterogeneity as drivers of eDNA detection dynamics. Science of the Total Environment, 768, 144466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144466 PMID: 33736342 55. Stoeckle B. C., Kuehn R., & Geist J. (2016). Environmental DNA as a monitoring tool for the endan- gered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.): a substitute for classical monitoring approaches?. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(6), 1120–1129. 56. Ha¨nfling B, Handley LL, Read DS, Hahn C, Li J, Nichols P, et al (2016) Environmental DNA metabar- coding of lake fish communities reflects long-term data from established survey methods. Mol Ecol 25:3101–3119 https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13660 PMID: 27095076

57. Zhang S, Lu Q, Wang Y, Wang X, Zhao J, Yao M (2020) Assessment of fish communities using environ- mental DNA: Effect of spatial sampling design in lentic systems of different sizes. Mol Ecol Resour 20:242–255 https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13105 PMID: 31625686 PLOS ONE eDNA metabarcoding reservoir PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314210 January 24, 2025 21 / 22