Literature DB >> 31937227

A comparison of eDNA to camera trapping for assessment of terrestrial mammal diversity.

Kevin Leempoel1,2, Trevor Hebert2, Elizabeth A Hadly1,2,3.   

Abstract

Before environmental DNA (eDNA) can establish itself as a robust tool for biodiversity monitoring, comparison with existing approaches is necessary, yet is lacking for terrestrial mammals. Moreover, much is unknown regarding the nature, spread and persistence of DNA shed by animals into terrestrial environments, or the optimal experimental design for understanding these potential biases. To address some of these challenges, we compared the detection of terrestrial mammals using eDNA analysis of soil samples against confirmed species observations from a long-term (approx. 9-year) camera-trapping study. At the same time, we considered multiple experimental parameters, including two sampling designs, two DNA extraction kits and two metabarcodes of different sizes. All mammals regularly recorded with cameras were detected in eDNA. In addition, eDNA reported many unrecorded small mammals whose presence in the study area is otherwise documented. A long metabarcode (≈220 bp) offering a high taxonomic resolution, achieved a similar efficiency as a shorter one (≈70 bp) and a phosphate buffer-based extraction gave similar results as a total DNA extraction method, for a fraction of the price. Our results support that eDNA-based monitoring should become a valuable part of ecosystem surveys, yet mitochondrial reference databases need to be enriched first.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Illumina MiSeq; biodiversity monitoring; camera trapping; environmental DNA; mammals

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31937227      PMCID: PMC7003463          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2019.2353

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  20 in total

1.  Soil sampling and isolation of extracellular DNA from large amount of starting material suitable for metabarcoding studies.

Authors:  Pierre Taberlet; Sophie M Prud'Homme; Etienne Campione; Julien Roy; Christian Miquel; Wasim Shehzad; Ludovic Gielly; Delphine Rioux; Philippe Choler; Jean-Christophe Clément; Christelle Melodelima; François Pompanon; Eric Coissac
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 6.185

2.  Meta-barcoding of 'dirt' DNA from soil reflects vertebrate biodiversity.

Authors:  Kenneth Andersen; Karen Lise Bird; Morten Rasmussen; James Haile; Henrik Breuning-Madsen; Kurt H Kjaer; Ludovic Orlando; M Thomas P Gilbert; Eske Willerslev
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 6.185

3.  Predicting biodiversity change and averting collapse in agricultural landscapes.

Authors:  Chase D Mendenhall; Daniel S Karp; Christoph F J Meyer; Elizabeth A Hadly; Gretchen C Daily
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Unbiased probabilistic taxonomic classification for DNA barcoding.

Authors:  Panu Somervuo; Sonja Koskela; Juho Pennanen; R Henrik Nilsson; Otso Ovaskainen
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 6.937

5.  A comparison of eDNA to camera trapping for assessment of terrestrial mammal diversity.

Authors:  Kevin Leempoel; Trevor Hebert; Elizabeth A Hadly
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Carrion fly-derived DNA as a tool for comprehensive and cost-effective assessment of mammalian biodiversity.

Authors:  Sébastien Calvignac-Spencer; Kevin Merkel; Nadine Kutzner; Hjalmar Kühl; Christophe Boesch; Peter M Kappeler; Sonja Metzger; Grit Schubert; Fabian H Leendertz
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 6.185

7.  Environmental DNA enables detection of terrestrial mammals from forest pond water.

Authors:  Masayuki Ushio; Hisato Fukuda; Toshiki Inoue; Kobayashi Makoto; Osamu Kishida; Keiichi Sato; Koichi Murata; Masato Nikaido; Tetsuya Sado; Yukuto Sato; Masamichi Takeshita; Wataru Iwasaki; Hiroki Yamanaka; Michio Kondoh; Masaki Miya
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2017-06-11       Impact factor: 7.090

Review 8.  Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation.

Authors:  David Bickford; David J Lohman; Navjot S Sodhi; Peter K L Ng; Rudolf Meier; Kevin Winker; Krista K Ingram; Indraneil Das
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2006-11-28       Impact factor: 17.712

9.  BLAST+: architecture and applications.

Authors:  Christiam Camacho; George Coulouris; Vahram Avagyan; Ning Ma; Jason Papadopoulos; Kevin Bealer; Thomas L Madden
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Using eDNA to experimentally test ungulate browsing preferences.

Authors:  Ruth V Nichols; Joris P G M Cromsigt; Göran Spong
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2015-09-10
View more
  5 in total

1.  A comparison of eDNA to camera trapping for assessment of terrestrial mammal diversity.

Authors:  Kevin Leempoel; Trevor Hebert; Elizabeth A Hadly
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  A review of applications of environmental DNA for reptile conservation and management.

Authors:  Bethany Nordstrom; Nicola Mitchell; Margaret Byrne; Simon Jarman
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-06-05       Impact factor: 3.167

3.  Metabarcoding Malaise traps and soil eDNA reveals seasonal and local arthropod diversity shifts.

Authors:  Ameli Kirse; Sarah J Bourlat; Kathrin Langen; Vera G Fonseca
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 4.996

Review 4.  Noninvasive Genetic Assessment Is an Effective Wildlife Research Tool When Compared with Other Approaches.

Authors:  Miriam A Zemanova
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-10-23       Impact factor: 4.096

5.  Environmental DNA provides quantitative estimates of Pacific hake abundance and distribution in the open ocean.

Authors:  Andrew Olaf Shelton; Ana Ramón-Laca; Abigail Wells; Julia Clemons; Dezhang Chu; Blake E Feist; Ryan P Kelly; Sandra L Parker-Stetter; Rebecca Thomas; Krista M Nichols; Linda Park
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 5.349

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.