Forests are complex and dynamic systems supporting everything from towering trees to microscopic fungi, and providing essential benefits such as carbon storage, flood mitigation, and wildlife habitat. Under increasing pressure from climate change and development, these ecosystems require accurate, timely monitoring to guide conservation and land management. Conventional field surveys, while valuable, can be labour-intensive, expensive, and prone to missing elusive or seasonal species. Recent research illustrates how soil environmental DNA (eDNA) offers a promising alternative, albeit with improvements. By isolating traces of genetic material shed by plants into the soil, researchers can capture a broad snapshot of both current and historical biodiversity.
Why Soil eDNA Matters
Vegetation maps and species inventories underpin reforestation initiatives, habitat restoration, and biodiversity protection. Yet many surveys are constrained by their reliance on visible plant features, which can be transitory or difficult to spot. Soil eDNA addresses these gaps by detecting genetic fragments that persist long after a plant has flowered or shed its leaves. It can also capture cryptic species that appear only for short periods each year.
This capacity to reveal both present and historical traces proves especially useful in forests spanning strong environmental gradients. For instance, changes in soil calcium or water availability may only be apparent to the human observer at certain times, whereas genetic material can linger for months or even years. As such, eDNA analysis has become an appealing method for detecting subtle shifts in forest composition that might otherwise be missed.
A study conducted in Norway sought to answer three key questions to evaluate eDNA’s potential:
- Can soil eDNA reliably capture the plant communities that occupy a given site?
- How do eDNA-based findings compare with conventional forest mapping?
- Do eDNA signals reveal environmental gradients reminiscent of those identified through traditional, field-based approaches?
Study Overview and Methods
Researchers chose Norway’s Hvaler archipelago—a region known for forests ranging from calcium-rich to relatively dry—to test soil eDNA’s effectiveness. They collected 31 soil samples from sites previously classified by the Nature in Norway (NiN) system, which organises forests into types based on expert knowledge and visible vegetation. After clearing surface debris, they extracted a standardised core of the organic horizon, where plant debris and roots accumulate. In the laboratory, each sample was homogenised to ensure consistency, and DNA was isolated through a two-step extraction process designed to capture both intracellular and extracellular fragments.
Two genetic markers were targeted:
- trnL (UAA) intron p6 loop – A short marker suited to degraded DNA, thereby capturing a more extended historical signal.
- ITS2 – Potentially offering finer resolution for modern-day species, though it can suffer in the face of heavy DNA fragmentation typical of older soil samples.
Sequenced DNA fragments were compared against curated reference databases covering the regional flora. Ordination techniques—namely detrended correspondence analysis and non-metric multidimensional scaling—helped reduce vast read-count data into interpretable patterns. These patterns were then compared with NiN classifications to determine how eDNA data might reinforce or extend traditional forest mapping.
Comparisons with Traditional Approaches
Overlap between eDNA results and NiN-based species lists ranged from roughly one-quarter to three-quarters per site, averaging about 50%. At first glance, this partial concordance might seem disappointing, but it reflects the inherent biases of each technique. Field surveys can miss inconspicuous plants—particularly if they are rare or unremarkable outside flowering season—while soil eDNA can detect traces from adjacent areas or from plants that disappeared years ago. In other words, eDNA often casts a wider net.
Nevertheless, the eDNA data did align with one of NiN’s main ecological gradients—soil calcium. This correspondence shows soil eDNA’s capacity to highlight well-known environmental drivers of forest composition. Another eDNA-derived gradient, however, proved more enigmatic, perhaps reflecting drought tolerance, soil texture, or unmeasured factors that invite further investigation.
Key Insights into Forest Ecology
- Enhanced Detection By combining two genetic markers, researchers detected 70 plant taxa, including some overlooked in traditional surveys. These findings indicate eDNA’s strong potential to capture both common and cryptic species.
- Refining Gradients The confirmation of a calcium-related gradient demonstrates eDNA’s ability to pick out major environmental influences. A secondary gradient, less explained by field observations, suggests the possibility of uncovering subtler parameters shaping forest communities.
- Regional Signals Soil eDNA can incorporate traces from neighbouring stands, which may obscure precise local species lists. However, this regional influence can offer a broader perspective, detecting shifts across a landscape rather than just a single plot.
Advantages of Soil eDNA
- Non-Invasive Sampling: Coring soil leaves minimal disturbance, allowing repeated collections without harming the site. This is ideal for monitoring how forests change over time.
- Efficiency and Scalability: High-throughput sequencing platforms can process numerous soil samples simultaneously, reducing the labour involved in large-scale field surveys.
- Capturing Past and Present: DNA degrades gradually, so older fragments can persist alongside those from living plants. Researchers can thus detect species that have left or arrived recently.
Ongoing Limitations
- Reference Library Gaps: Regions lacking comprehensive DNA databases will encounter difficulties identifying all recovered sequences, potentially missing important local taxa.
- Marker Constraints: While trnL can remain informative under tough conditions, it often resolves only to genus level. ITS2 may yield species-level data but is more susceptible to degradation.
- Interpreting Presence: Detecting a plant’s DNA does not guarantee its active growth onsite. Remnant or transported DNA may skew efforts to assign precise vegetation types.
Future Prospects: Factors that could enhance eDNA’s utility in forest ecology
- Expanded Databases: Ongoing efforts to catalogue regional flora will minimise ambiguous matches and boost the accuracy of taxonomic assignments.
- Multiple Marker Sets: Including loci for underrepresented groups such as ferns or bryophytes could yield more holistic community snapshots.
- Advanced Bioinformatics: Machine learning might help distinguish between relic and current signals, refining our understanding of eDNA-based gradients.
- Long-Term Monitoring: Regular soil sampling could chart gradual shifts in forest composition, offering early warnings of climate-driven change or the spread of invasive species.
Synthesis and Practical Implications
From a forest management perspective, these insights into hidden diversity or unexpected ecological gradients can prove invaluable. By identifying early signs of stress or disturbance, eDNA monitoring might guide more proactive interventions. As reference datasets mature and analytical tools improve, we can expect greater precision and utility from eDNA surveys.
Soil eDNA metabarcoding is poised to reshape forest ecology by offering rapid, inclusive snapshots of plant communities over time. Although it does not replace the depth of field-based expertise, it adds a powerful, complementary dimension. The traces of genetic material preserved in soil can illuminate both the present state and the recent past, revealing shifts that conventional surveys might easily overlook.
It is a rapidly changing world. Integrating eDNA insights with traditional methods may enable forest managers, conservationists, and policymakers to spot emerging issues sooner and act more strategically. As these techniques become more refined, they promise a brighter, more adaptive future for forest monitoring—one where silent molecular evidence works hand in hand with expert observation. By embracing this innovative approach, we stand better equipped to protect and restore these vital ecosystems for generations to come.
Leave a Reply