Literature DB >> 26536842

A framework for estimating the sensitivity of eDNA surveys.

Elise M Furlan1, Dianne Gleeson1, Christopher M Hardy2,3, Richard P Duncan1.   

Abstract

Imperfect sensitivity, or imperfect detection, is a feature of all survey methods that needs to be accounted for when interpreting survey results. Detection of environmental DNA (eDNA) is increasingly being used to infer species distributions, yet the sensitivity of the technique has not been fully evaluated. Sensitivity, or the probability of detecting target DNA given it is present at a site, will depend on both the survey method and the concentration and dispersion of target DNA molecules at a site. We present a model to estimate target DNA concentration and dispersion at survey sites and to estimate the sensitivity of an eDNA survey method. We fitted this model to data from a species-specific eDNA survey for Oriental weatherloach, Misgurnus anguillicaudatus, at three sites sampled in both autumn and spring. The concentration of target DNA molecules was similar at all three sites in autumn but much higher at two sites in spring. Our analysis showed the survey method had ≥95% sensitivity at sites where target DNA concentrations were ≥11 molecules per litre. We show how these data can be used to compare sampling schemes that differ in the number of field samples collected per site and number of PCR replicates per sample to achieve ≥95% sensitivity at a given target DNA concentration. These models allow researchers to quantify the sensitivity of eDNA survey methods to optimize the probability of detecting target species, and to compare DNA concentrations spatially and temporarily.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  detection probability; detection sensitivity; distribution; eDNA; environmental DNA; species-specific detection

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26536842     DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12483

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour        ISSN: 1755-098X            Impact factor:   7.090


  24 in total

Review 1.  Early detection monitoring for aquatic non-indigenous species: Optimizing surveillance, incorporating advanced technologies, and identifying research needs.

Authors:  Anett S Trebitz; Joel C Hoffman; John A Darling; Erik M Pilgrim; John R Kelly; Emily A Brown; W Lindsay Chadderton; Scott P Egan; Erin K Grey; Syed A Hashsham; Katy E Klymus; Andrew R Mahon; Jeffrey L Ram; Martin T Schultz; Carol A Stepien; James C Schardt
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2017-07-22       Impact factor: 6.789

2.  Identifying a breeding habitat of a critically endangered fish, Acheilognathus typus, in a natural river in Japan.

Authors:  Masayuki K Sakata; Nobutaka Maki; Hideki Sugiyama; Toshifumi Minamoto
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2017-11-14

3.  Accurate detection and quantification of seasonal abundance of American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) using ddPCR eDNA assays.

Authors:  Teun Everts; David Halfmaerten; Sabrina Neyrinck; Nico De Regge; Hans Jacquemyn; Rein Brys
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Detection and persistence of environmental DNA from an invasive, terrestrial mammal.

Authors:  Kelly E Williams; Kathryn P Huyvaert; Kurt C Vercauteren; Amy J Davis; Antoinette J Piaggio
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-12-03       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  A single mini-barcode test to screen for Australian mammalian predators from environmental samples.

Authors:  Elodie Modave; Anna J MacDonald; Stephen D Sarre
Journal:  Gigascience       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 6.524

6.  Clearing muddied waters: Capture of environmental DNA from turbid waters.

Authors:  Kelly E Williams; Kathryn P Huyvaert; Antoinette J Piaggio
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-07       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Methods to maximise recovery of environmental DNA from water samples.

Authors:  Rheyda Hinlo; Dianne Gleeson; Mark Lintermans; Elise Furlan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Distribution and seasonal differences in Pacific Lamprey and Lampetra spp eDNA across 18 Puget Sound watersheds.

Authors:  Carl O Ostberg; Dorothy M Chase; Michael C Hayes; Jeffrey J Duda
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Environmental DNA filtration techniques affect recovered biodiversity.

Authors:  Markus Majaneva; Ola H Diserud; Shannon H C Eagle; Erik Boström; Mehrdad Hajibabaei; Torbjørn Ekrem
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  An analytical framework for estimating aquatic species density from environmental DNA.

Authors:  Thierry Chambert; David S Pilliod; Caren S Goldberg; Hideyuki Doi; Teruhiko Takahara
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-02-25       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.