Literature DB >> 30778682

Evaluating monitoring options for conservation: comparing traditional and environmental DNA tools for a critically endangered mammal.

Chanjuan Qu1, Kathryn A Stewart2,3.   

Abstract

While conservation management has made tremendous strides to date, deciding where, when and how to invest limited monitoring budgets is a central concern for impactful decision-making. New analytical tools, such as environmental DNA (eDNA), are now facilitating broader biodiversity monitoring at unprecedented scales, in part, due to time, and presumably cost, of methodological efficiency. Genetic approaches vary from conventional PCR (cPCR; species presence), to metabarcoding (community structure), and qPCR (relative DNA abundance, detection sensitivity). Knowing when to employ these techniques over traditional protocols could enable practitioners to make more informed choices concerning data collection. Using 12 species-specific primers designed for cPCR, eDNA analysis of the Yangtze finless porpoise (YFP; Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis), a critically endangered aquatic mammal within the Yangtze River, we validated and optimized these primers for use in qPCR. We tested repeatability and sensitivity to detect YFP eDNA and subsequently compared the cost of traditional (visual and capture) sampling to eDNA tools. Our results suggest cPCR as the least expensive sampling option but the lack of PCR sensitivity suggests it may not be the most robust method for this taxon, predominately useful as a supplementary tool or with large expected populations. Alternatively, qPCR remained less expensive than traditional surveys, representing a highly repeatable and sensitive method for this behaviorally elusive species. Cost comparisons of surveying practices have scarcely been discussed; however, given budgetary constraints particularly for developing countries with limited local oversight but high endemism, we encourage managers to carefully consider the trade-offs among accuracy, cost, coverage, and speed for biodiversity monitoring.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Environmental DNA; Systematic conservation planning; Yangtze finless porpoise

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30778682     DOI: 10.1007/s00114-019-1605-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Naturwissenschaften        ISSN: 0028-1042


  6 in total

1.  Environmental DNA monitoring of oncogenic viral shedding and genomic profiling of sea turtle fibropapillomatosis reveals unusual viral dynamics.

Authors:  Jessica A Farrell; Kelsey Yetsko; Liam Whitmore; Jenny Whilde; Catherine B Eastman; Devon Rollinson Ramia; Rachel Thomas; Paul Linser; Simon Creer; Brooke Burkhalter; Christine Schnitzler; David J Duffy
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2021-05-12

2.  Leveraging eDNA to expand the study of hybrid zones.

Authors:  Kathryn A Stewart; Scott A Taylor
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 6.185

3.  Field application of an improved protocol for environmental DNA extraction, purification, and measurement using Sterivex filter.

Authors:  Marty Kwok-Shing Wong; Mako Nakao; Susumu Hyodo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  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

5.  Using environmental DNA methods to improve detectability in an endangered sturgeon (Acipenser sinensis) monitoring program.

Authors:  Dan Yu; Zhongyuan Shen; Tao Chang; Sha Li; Huanzhang Liu
Journal:  BMC Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-12-01

Review 6.  Environmental DNA analysis as an emerging non-destructive method for plant biodiversity monitoring: a review.

Authors:  Pritam Banerjee; Kathryn A Stewart; Gobinda Dey; Caterina M Antognazza; Raju Kumar Sharma; Jyoti Prakash Maity; Santanu Saha; Hideyuki Doi; Natasha de Vere; Michael W Y Chan; Pin-Yun Lin; Hung-Chun Chao; Chien-Yen Chen
Journal:  AoB Plants       Date:  2022-07-02       Impact factor: 3.138

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.