Literature DB >> 33370371

Influence of sediment and stream transport on detecting a source of environmental DNA.

Meredith B Nevers1, Kasia Przybyla-Kelly1, Dawn Shively1,2, Charles C Morris3, Joshua Dickey3, Murulee N Byappanahalli1.   

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) can be used for early detection, population estimations, and assessment of potential spread of invasive species, but questions remain about factors that influence eDNA detection results. Efforts are being made to understand how physical, chemical, and biological factors-settling, resuspension, dispersion, eDNA stability/decay-influence eDNA estimations and potentially population abundance. In a series of field and controlled mesocosm experiments, we examined the detection and accumulation of eDNA in sediment and water and the transport of eDNA in a small stream in the Lake Michigan watershed, using the invasive round goby fish (Neogobius melanostomus) as a DNA source. Experiment 1: caged fish (average n = 44) were placed in a stream devoid of round goby; water was collected over 24 hours along 120-m of stream, including a simultaneous sampling event at 7 distances from DNA source; stream monitoring continued for 24 hours after fish were removed. Experiment 2: round goby were placed in laboratory tanks; water and sediment were collected over 14 days and for another 150 days post-fish removal to calculate eDNA shedding and decay rates for water and sediment. For samples from both experiments, DNA was extracted, and qPCR targeted a cytochrome oxidase I gene (COI) fragment specific to round goby. Results indicated that eDNA accumulated and decayed more slowly in sediment than water. In the stream, DNA shedding was markedly lower than calculated in the laboratory, but models indicate eDNA could potentially travel long distances (up to 50 km) under certain circumstances. Collectively, these findings show that the interactive effects of ambient conditions (e.g., eDNA stability and decay, hydrology, settling-resuspension) are important to consider when developing comprehensive models. Results of this study can help resource managers target representative sites downstream of potential invasion sites, thereby maximizing resource use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33370371      PMCID: PMC7769486          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  31 in total

Review 1.  Resurrecting ancient genes: experimental analysis of extinct molecules.

Authors:  Joseph W Thornton
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  Preservation of microbial DNA in marine sediments: insights from extracellular DNA pools.

Authors:  Andrea Torti; Bo Barker Jørgensen; Mark Alexander Lever
Journal:  Environ Microbiol       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 5.491

3.  Quantification of Environmental DNA (eDNA) Shedding and Decay Rates for Three Marine Fish.

Authors:  Lauren M Sassoubre; Kevan M Yamahara; Luke D Gardner; Barbara A Block; Alexandria B Boehm
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 4.  Predicting the fate of eDNA in the environment and implications for studying biodiversity.

Authors:  Jori B Harrison; Jennifer M Sunday; Sean M Rogers
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Environmental DNA facilitates accurate, inexpensive, and multiyear population estimates of millions of anadromous fish.

Authors:  Meredith Pochardt; Jennifer M Allen; Ted Hart; Sophie D L Miller; Douglas W Yu; Taal Levi
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 7.090

6.  The use of environmental DNA in invasive species surveillance of the Great Lakes commercial bait trade.

Authors:  Lucas R Nathan; Christopher L Jerde; Michelle L Budny; Andrew R Mahon
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 6.560

7.  The release rate of environmental DNA from juvenile and adult fish.

Authors:  Atsushi Maruyama; Keisuke Nakamura; Hiroki Yamanaka; Michio Kondoh; Toshifumi Minamoto
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  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

9.  Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding assays to detect invasive invertebrate species in the Great Lakes.

Authors:  Katy E Klymus; Nathaniel T Marshall; Carol A Stepien
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding of wild flowers reveals diverse communities of terrestrial arthropods.

Authors:  Philip Francis Thomsen; Eva E Sigsgaard
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 2.912

View more
  2 in total

1.  Comparison of species-specific qPCR and metabarcoding methods to detect small pelagic fish distribution from open ocean environmental DNA.

Authors:  Zeshu Yu; Shin-Ichi Ito; Marty Kwok-Shing Wong; Susumu Yoshizawa; Jun Inoue; Sachihiko Itoh; Ryuji Yukami; Kazuo Ishikawa; Chenying Guo; Minoru Ijichi; Susumu Hyodo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-07       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 2.  Why eDNA fractions need consideration in biomonitoring.

Authors:  Magdalena Nagler; Sabine Marie Podmirseg; Judith Ascher-Jenull; Daniela Sint; Michael Traugott
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2022-06-19       Impact factor: 8.678

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.