Literature DB >> 26677162

Using occupancy modelling to compare environmental DNA to traditional field methods for regional-scale monitoring of an endangered aquatic species.

Molly C Schmelzle1, Andrew P Kinziger1.   

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring approaches promise to greatly improve detection of rare, endangered and invasive species in comparison with traditional field approaches. Herein, eDNA approaches and traditional seining methods were applied at 29 research locations to compare method-specific estimates of detection and occupancy probabilities for endangered tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). At each location, multiple paired seine hauls and water samples for eDNA analysis were taken, ranging from two to 23 samples per site, depending upon habitat size. Analysis using a multimethod occupancy modelling framework indicated that the probability of detection using eDNA was nearly double (0.74) the rate of detection for seining (0.39). The higher detection rates afforded by eDNA allowed determination of tidewater goby occupancy at two locations where they have not been previously detected and at one location considered to be locally extirpated. Additionally, eDNA concentration was positively related to tidewater goby catch per unit effort, suggesting eDNA could potentially be used as a proxy for local tidewater goby abundance. Compared to traditional field sampling, eDNA provided improved occupancy parameter estimates and can be applied to increase management efficiency across a broad spatial range and within a diversity of habitats.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  conservation genetics; environmental DNA; fish; occupancy modelling; qPCR; tidal habitats

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26677162     DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12501

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


  8 in total

1.  Environmental DNA (eDNA) Detection Probability Is Influenced by Seasonal Activity of Organisms.

Authors:  Lesley S de Souza; James C Godwin; Mark A Renshaw; Eric Larson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  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

3.  Is the detection of aquatic environmental DNA influenced by substrate type?

Authors:  Andrew S Buxton; Jim J Groombridge; Richard A Griffiths
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Seasonal variation in environmental DNA detection in sediment and water samples.

Authors:  Andrew S Buxton; Jim J Groombridge; Richard A Griffiths
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Accounting for observation processes across multiple levels of uncertainty improves inference of species distributions and guides adaptive sampling of environmental DNA.

Authors:  Amy J Davis; Kelly E Williams; Nathan P Snow; Kim M Pepin; Antoinette J Piaggio
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Using eDNA to biomonitor the fish community in a tropical oligotrophic lake.

Authors:  Martha Valdez-Moreno; Natalia V Ivanova; Manuel Elías-Gutiérrez; Stephanie L Pedersen; Kyrylo Bessonov; Paul D N Hebert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Concurrent visual encounter sampling validates eDNA selectivity and sensitivity for the endangered wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta).

Authors:  Thomas S Akre; Lillian D Parker; Ellery Ruther; Jesus E Maldonado; Lorien Lemmon; Nancy Rotzel McInerney
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Meta-analysis shows that environmental DNA outperforms traditional surveys, but warrants better reporting standards.

Authors:  Julija Fediajevaite; Victoria Priestley; Richard Arnold; Vincent Savolainen
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 2.912

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.