Literature DB >> 26591459

I Environmental DNA sampling is more sensitive than a traditional survey technique for detecting an aquatic invader.

Adam S Smart, Reid Tingley, Andrew R Weeks, Anthony R van Rooyen, Michael A McCarthy.   

Abstract

Effective management of alien species requires detecting populations in the early stages of invasion. Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling can detect aquatic species at relatively low densities, but few studies have directly compared detection probabilities of eDNA sampling with those of traditional sampling methods. We compare the ability of a traditional sampling technique (bottle trapping) and eDNA to detect a recently established invader, the smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris vulgaris, at seven field sites in Melbourne, Australia. Over a four-month period, per-trap detection probabilities ranged from 0.01 to 0.26 among sites where L. v. vulgaris was detected, whereas per-sample eDNA estimates were much higher (0.29-1.0). Detection probabilities of both methods varied temporally (across days and months), but temporal variation appeared to be uncorrelated between methods. Only estimates of spatial variation were strongly correlated across the two sampling techniques. Environmental variables (water depth, rainfall, ambient temperature) were not clearly correlated with detection probabilities estimated via trapping, whereas eDNA detection probabilities were negatively correlated with water depth, possibly reflecting higher eDNA concentrations at lower water levels. Our findings demonstrate that eDNA sampling can be an order of magnitude more sensitive than traditional methods, and illustrate that traditional- and eDNA-based surveys can provide independent information on species distributions when occupancy surveys are conducted over short timescales.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26591459     DOI: 10.1890/14-1751.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  16 in total

1.  Environmental DNA for improved detection and environmental surveillance of schistosomiasis.

Authors:  Mita E Sengupta; Micaela Hellström; Henry C Kariuki; Annette Olsen; Philip F Thomsen; Helena Mejer; Eske Willerslev; Mariam T Mwanje; Henry Madsen; Thomas K Kristensen; Anna-Sofie Stensgaard; Birgitte J Vennervald
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-04-11       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Using eDNA to detect the distribution and density of invasive crayfish in the Honghe-Hani rice terrace World Heritage site.

Authors:  Wang Cai; Zhuxin Ma; Chunyan Yang; Lin Wang; Wenzhi Wang; Guigang Zhao; Yupeng Geng; Douglas W Yu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Chirosurveillance: The use of native bats to detect invasive agricultural pests.

Authors:  Brooke Maslo; Rafael Valentin; Karen Leu; Kathleen Kerwin; George C Hamilton; Amanda Bevan; Nina H Fefferman; Dina M Fonseca
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Shedding light on eDNA: neither natural levels of UV radiation nor the presence of a filter feeder affect eDNA-based detection of aquatic organisms.

Authors:  Elvira Mächler; Maslin Osathanunkul; Florian Altermatt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Optimization and performance testing of a sequence processing pipeline applied to detection of nonindigenous species.

Authors:  Ryan Scott; Aibin Zhan; Emily A Brown; Frédéric J J Chain; Melania E Cristescu; Robin Gras; Hugh J MacIsaac
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 5.183

6.  Environmental DNA sampling reveals high occupancy rates of invasive Burmese pythons at wading bird breeding aggregations in the central Everglades.

Authors:  Sophia C M Orzechowski; Peter C Frederick; Robert M Dorazio; Margaret E Hunter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Influence of accuracy, repeatability and detection probability in the reliability of species-specific eDNA based approaches.

Authors:  Quentin Mauvisseau; Alfred Burian; Ceri Gibson; Rein Brys; Andrew Ramsey; Michael Sweet
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  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

9.  Catching the fish with the worm: a case study on eDNA detection of the monogenean parasite Gyrodactylus salaris and two of its hosts, Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Authors:  Johannes C Rusch; Haakon Hansen; David A Strand; Turhan Markussen; Sigurd Hytterød; Trude Vrålstad
Journal:  Parasit Vectors       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.876

10.  Shotgun metagenomics of honey DNA: Evaluation of a methodological approach to describe a multi-kingdom honey bee derived environmental DNA signature.

Authors:  Samuele Bovo; Anisa Ribani; Valerio Joe Utzeri; Giuseppina Schiavo; Francesca Bertolini; Luca Fontanesi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.