Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prospects and challenges of environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring in freshwater ponds

Open access
Harper, Lynsey R., Buxton, Andrew S., Rees, Helen C., Bruce, Kat, Brys, Rein, Halfmaerten, David, Read, Daniel S., Watson, Hayley V., Sayer, Carl D., Jones, Eleanor P., Priestley, Victoria, Mächler, Elvira, Múrria, Cesc, Garcés-Pastor, Sandra, Medupin, Cecilia, Burgess, Katherine, Benson, Gillian, Boonham, Neil, Griffiths, Richard A., Lawson Handley, Lori, Hänfling, Bernd·2019·Hydrobiologia
DOI 10.1007/s10750-018-3750-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is a rapid, non-invasive, cost-efficient biodiversity monitoring tool with enormous potential to inform aquatic conservation and management. Development is ongoing, with strong commercial interest, and new uses are continually being discovered. General applications of eDNA and guidelines for best practice in freshwater systems have been established, but habitat-specific assessments are lacking. Ponds are highly diverse, yet understudied systems that could benefit from eDNA monitoring. However, eDNA applications in ponds and methodological constraints specific to these environments remain unaddressed. Following a stakeholder workshop in 2017, researchers combined knowledge and expertise to review these applications and challenges that must be addressed for the future and consistency of eDNA monitoring in ponds. The greatest challenges for pond eDNA surveys are representative sampling, eDNA capture, and potential PCR inhibition. We provide recommendations for sampling, eDNA capture, inhibition testing, and laboratory practice, which should aid new and ongoing eDNA projects in ponds. If implemented, these recommendations will contribute towards an eventual broad standardisation of eDNA research and practice, with room to tailor workflows for optimal analysis and different applications. Such standardisation will provide more robust, comparable, and ecologically meaningful data to enable effective conservation and management of pond biodiversity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10750-018-3750-5

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 98

  1. Agersnap, S., W. B. Larsen, S. W. Knudsen, D. Strand, P. F. Thomsen, M. Hesselsøe, P. B. Mortensen, T. Vrålstad & P. R. Møller, 2017. Monitoring of noble, signal and narrow-clawed crayfish using environmental DNA from freshwater samples. PLoS ONE 12: e0179261. · DOI
  2. Alaeddini, R., 2012. Forensic implications of PCR inhibition—a review. Forensic Science International: Genetics 6: 297–305. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Albers, C. N., A. Jensen, J. Bælum & C. S. Jacobsen, 2013. Inhibition of DNA polymerases used in Q-PCR by structurally different soil-derived humic substances. Geomicrobiology Journal 30: 675–681. · DOI
  4. Alderton, E., C. D. Sayer, R. Davies, S. J. Lambert & J. C. Axmacher, 2017. Buried alive: aquatic plants survive in “ghost ponds” under agricultural fields. Biological Conservation 212: 105–110. · DOI
  5. Bálint, M., C. Nowak, O. Márton, S. U. Pauls, C. Wittwer, J. L. Aramayo, A. Schulze, T. Chambert, B. Cocchiararo & M. Jansen, 2018. Accuracy, limitations and cost efficiency of eDNA-based community survey in tropical frogs. Molecular Ecology Resources. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12934 · DOI
  6. Barnes, M. A. & C. R. Turner, 2015. The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics. Conservation Genetics 17: 1–17. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Biggs, J., S. von Fumetti & M. Kelly-Quinn, 2016. The importance of small waterbodies for biodiversity and ecosystem services: implications for policy makers. Hydrobiologia 793: 3–39. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bista, I., G. R. Carvalho, K. Walsh, M. Seymour, M. Hajibabaei, D. Lallias, M. Christmas & S. Creer, 2017. Annual time-series analysis of aqueous eDNA reveals ecologically relevant dynamics of lake ecosystem biodiversity. Nature Communications 8: 14087. · DOI
  9. Blackman, R. C., D. Constable, C. Hahn, A. M. Sheard, J. Durkota, B. Hänfling & L. L. Handley, 2017. Detection of a new non-native freshwater species by DNA metabarcoding of environmental samples—first record of Gammarus fossarum in the UK. Aquatic Invasions 12: 177–189. · DOI
  10. Boessenkool, S., L. S. Epp, J. Haile, E. Bellemain, M. Edwards, E. Coissac, E. Willerslev, C. Brochmann, 2012. Blocking human contaminant DNA during PCR allows amplification of rare mammal species from sedimentary ancient DNA. Molecular Ecology 21: 1806–1815. · DOI
  11. Brandon-Mong, G.-J., H.-M. Gan, K.-W. Sing, P.-S. Lee, P.-E. Lim & J.-J. Wilson, 2015. DNA metabarcoding of insects and allies: an evaluation of primers and pipelines. Bulletin of Entomological Research 105: 717–727. · DOI
  12. Briers, R. A. & J. Biggs, 2005. Spatial patterns in pond invertebrate communities: separating environmental and distance effects. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 549–557. · DOI
  13. Buxton, A. S., J. J. Groombridge & R. A. Griffiths, 2017a. Is the detection of aquatic environmental DNA influenced by substrate type? PLoS ONE 12: e0183371. · DOI
  14. Buxton, A. S., J. J. Groombridge & R. A. Griffiths, 2018. Seasonal variation in environmental DNA detection in sediment and water samples. PLoS ONE 13: e0191737. · DOI
  15. Bylemans, J., E. M. Furlan, C. M. Hardy, P. McGuffie, M. Lintermans & D. M. Gleeson, 2017. An environmental DNA-based method for monitoring spawning activity: a case study, using the endangered Macquarie perch (Macquaria australasica). Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8: 646–655. · DOI
  16. Céréghino, R., J. Biggs, B. Oertli & S. Declerck, 2008. The ecology of European ponds: defining the characteristics of a neglected freshwater habitat. Hydrobiologia 597: 1–6. · DOI
  17. Deiner, K., H. M. Bik, E. Mächler, M. Seymour, A. Lacoursière-Roussel, F. Altermatt, S. Creer, I. Bista, D. M. Lodge, N. de Vere, M. E. Pfrender & L. Bernatchez, 2017. Environmental DNA metabarcoding: transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Molecular Ecology 26: 5872–5895. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Deiner, K., E. A. Fronhofer, E. Mächler, J.-C. Walser & F. Altermatt, 2016. Environmental DNA reveals that rivers are conveyer belts of biodiversity information. Nature Communications 7: 12544. · DOI · Paper page
  19. De Meester, L., S. Declerck, R. Stoks, G. Louette, F. Van De Meutter, T. De Bie, E. Michels & L. Brendonck, 2005. Ponds and pools as model systems in conservation biology, ecology and evolutionary biology. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 715–725. · DOI · Paper page
  20. de Souza, L. S., J. C. Godwin, M. A. Renshaw & E. Larson, 2016. Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection probability is influenced by seasonal activity of organisms. PLoS ONE 11: e0165273. · DOI
  21. Doi, H., T. Takahara, T. Minamoto, S. Matsuhashi, K. Uchii & H. Yamanaka, 2015a. Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (PCR) outperforms real-time PCR in the detection of environmental DNA from an invasive fish species. Environmental Science & Technology 49: 5601–5608. · DOI
  22. Doi, H., K. Uchii, T. Takahara, S. Matsuhashi, H. Yamanaka & T. Minamoto, 2015b. Use of droplet digital PCR for estimation of fish abundance and biomass in environmental DNA surveys. PLoS ONE 10: e0122763. · DOI
  23. Doi, H., I. Katano, Y. Sakata, R. Souma, T. Kosuge, M. Nagano, K. Ikeda, K. Yano & K. Tojo, 2017. Detection of an endangered aquatic heteropteran using environmental DNA in a wetland ecosystem. Royal Society Open Science 4: 170568. · DOI
  24. Downing, J. A., Y. T. Prairie, J. J. Cole, C. M. Duarte, L. J. Tranvik, R. G. Striegl, W. H. McDowell, P. Kortelainen, N. F. Caraco, J. M. Melack & J. J. Middelburg, 2006. The global abundance and size distribution of lakes, ponds, and impoundments. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 2388–2397. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Dunker, K. J., A. J. Sepulveda, R. L. Massengill, J. B. Olsen, O. L. Russ, J. K. Wenburg & A. Antonovich, 2016. Potential of environmental DNA to evaluate Northern Pike (Esox lucius) eradication efforts: an experimental test and case study. PLoS ONE 11: e0162277. · DOI
  26. Dunn, N., V. Priestley, A. Herraiz, R. Arnold & V. Savolainen, 2017. Behavior and season affect crayfish detection and density inference using environmental DNA. Ecology and Evolution 7: 7777–7785. · DOI
  27. Eichmiller, J. J., P. G. Bajer & P. W. Sorensen, 2014. The relationship between the distribution of common carp and their environmental DNA in a small lake. PLoS ONE 9: e112611. · DOI
  28. Elbrecht, V. & F. Leese, 2017. Validation and development of COI metabarcoding primers for freshwater macroinvertebrate bioassessment. Frontiers in Environmental Science 5: 1–11.
  29. Elbrecht, V., P. Taberlet, T. Dejean, A. Valentini, P. Usseglio-Polatera, J.-N. Beisel, E. Coissac, F. Boyer & F. Leese, 2016. Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA metabarcoding of insects. PeerJ 4: e1966. · DOI
  30. Elbrecht, V., E. E. Vamos, K. Meissner, J. Aroviita & F. Leese, 2017. Assessing strengths and weaknesses of DNA metabarcoding-based macroinvertebrate identification for routine stream monitoring. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8: 1265–1275. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Emson, D., C. D. Sayer, H. Bennion, I. R. Patmore & P. Rioual, 2017. Mission possible: diatoms can be used to infer past duckweed (lemnoid Araceae) dominance in ponds. Journal of Paleolimnology 60: 209–221. · DOI
  32. Evans, N. T., B. P. Olds, M. A. Renshaw, C. R. Turner, Y. Li, C. L. Jerde, A. R. Mahon, M. E. Pfrender, G. A. Lamberti & D. M. Lodge, 2016. Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources 16: 29–41. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Evans, N. T., Y. Li, M. A. Renshaw, B. P. Olds, K. Deiner, C. R. Turner, C. L. Jerde, D. M. Lodge, G. A. Lamberti & M. E. Pfrender, 2017. Fish community assessment with eDNA metabarcoding: effects of sampling design and bioinformatic filtering. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 74: 1362–1374. · DOI
  34. Ficetola, G. F., C. Miaud, F. Pompanon & P. Taberlet, 2008. Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples. Biology Letters 4: 423–425. · DOI
  35. Goldberg, C. S., A. Sepulveda, A. Ray, J. Baumgardt & L. P. Waits, 2013. Environmental DNA as a new method for early detection of New Zealand mudsnails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). Freshwater Science 32: 792–800. · DOI
  36. Goldberg, C. S., C. R. Turner, K. Deiner, K. E. Klymus, P. F. Thomsen, M. A. Murphy, S. F. Spear, A. McKee, S. J. Oyler-McCance, R. S. Cornman, M. B. Laramie, A. R. Mahon, R. F. Lance, D. S. Pilliod, K. M. Strickler, L. P. Waits, A. K. Fremier, T. Takahara, J. E. Herder & P. Taberlet, 2016. Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7: 1299–1307. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Goldberg, C. S., K. M. Strickler & A. K. Fremier, 2018. Degradation and dispersion limit environmental DNA detection of rare amphibians in wetlands: increasing efficacy of sampling designs. Science of the Total Environment 633: 695–703. · DOI
  38. Hänfling, B., L. Lawson Handley, D. S. Read, C. Hahn, J. Li, P. Nichols, R. C. Blackman, A. Oliver & I. J. Winfield, 2016. Environmental DNA metabarcoding of lake fish communities reflects long-term data from established survey methods. Molecular Ecology 25: 3101–3119. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Harper, K. J., N. Patrick Anucha, J. F. Turnbull, C. W. Bean & M. J. Leaver, 2018a. Searching for a signal: environmental DNA (eDNA) for the detection of invasive signal crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana, 1852). Management of Biological Invasions 9: 137–148. · DOI
  40. Harper, L. R., L. Lawson Handley, C. Hahn, N. Boonham, H. C. Rees, K. C. Gough, E. Lewis, I. P. Adams, P. Brotherton, S. Phillips & B. Hänfling, 2018b. Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Ecology and Evolution 8: 6330–6341. · DOI
  41. Harper, L. R., L. Lawson Handley, C. Hahn, N. Boonham, H. C. Rees, E. Lewis, I. P. Adams, P. Brotherton, S. Phillips & B. Hänfling, 2018c. Ground-truthing environmental DNA metabarcoding for ecological hypothesis testing at the pondscape. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/278309 . · DOI
  42. Hebert, P. D. N., A. Cywinska, S. L. Ball & J. R. deWaard, 2003. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 270: 313–321. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Hering, D., A. Borja, J. I. Jones, D. Pont, P. Boets, A. Bouchez, K. Bruce, S. Drakare, B. Hänfling, M. Kahlert, F. Leese, K. Meissner, P. Mergen, Y. Reyjol, P. Segurado, A. Vogler & M. Kelly, 2018. Implementation options for DNA-based identification into ecological status assessment under the European Water Framework Directive. Water Research 138: 192–205. · DOI · Paper page
  44. Hill, M. J., C. Hassall, B. Oertli, L. Fahrig, B. J. Robson, J. Biggs, M. J. Samways, N. Usio, N. Takamura, J. Krishnaswamy & P. J. Wood, 2018. New policy directions for global pond conservation. Conservation Letters 142: e12447. · DOI · Paper page
  45. Hinlo, R., D. Gleeson, M. Lintermans & E. Furlan, 2017. Methods to maximise recovery of environmental DNA from water samples. PLoS ONE 12: e0179251. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Jane, S. F., T. M. Wilcox, K. S. McKelvey, M. K. Young, M. K. Schwartz, W. H. Lowe, B. H. Letcher & A. R. Whiteley, 2015. Distance, flow and PCR inhibition: eDNA dynamics in two headwater streams. Molecular Ecology Resources 15: 216–227. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Kazanjian, G., S. Flury, K. Attermeyer, T. Kalettka, A. Kleeberg, K. Premke, J. Köhler & S. Hilt, 2018. Primary production in nutrient-rich kettle holes and consequences for nutrient and carbon cycling. Hydrobiologia 806: 77–93. · DOI
  48. Klymus, K. E., N. T. Marshall & C. A. Stepien, 2017a. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding assays to detect invasive invertebrate species in the Great Lakes. PLoS ONE 12: e0177643. · DOI
  49. Klymus, K. E., C. A. Richter, N. Thompson & J. E. Hinck, 2017b. Metabarcoding of environmental DNA samples to explore the use of uranium mine containment ponds as a water source for wildlife. Diversity 9: 54. · DOI
  50. Larson, E. R., M. A. Renshaw, C. A. Gantz, J. Umek, S. Chandra, D. M. Lodge & S. P. Egan, 2017. Environmental DNA (eDNA) detects the invasive crayfishes Orconectes rusticus and Pacifastacus leniusculus in large lakes of North America. Hydrobiologia 800: 173–185. · DOI
  51. Lawson Handley, L., 2015. How will the “molecular revolution” contribute to biological recording? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 115: 750–766. · DOI
  52. Leese, F., F. Altermatt, A. Bouchez, T. Ekrem, D. Hering, K. Meissner, P. Mergen, J. Pawlowski, J. Piggott, F. Rimet, D. Steinke, P. Taberlet, A. Weigand, K. Abarenkov, P. Beja, L. Bervoets, S. Björnsdóttir, P. Boets, A. Boggero, A. Bones, Á. Borja, K. Bruce, V. Bursić, J. Carlsson, F. Čiampor, Z. Čiamporová-Zatovičová, E. Coissac, F. Costa, M. Costache, S. Creer, Z. Csabai, K. Deiner, Á. DelValls, S. Drakare, S. Duarte, T. Eleršek, S. Fazi, C. Fišer, J.-F. Flot, V. Fonseca, D. Fontaneto, M. Grabowski, W. Graf, J. Guðbrandsson, M. Hellström, Y. Hershkovitz, P. Hollingsworth, B. Japoshvili, J. Jones, M. Kahlert, B. Kalamujic Stroil, P. Kasapidis, M. Kelly, M. Kelly-Quinn, E. Keskin, U. Kõljalg, Z. Ljubešić, I. Maček, E. Mächler, A. Mahon, M. Marečková, M. Mejdandzic, G. Mircheva, M. Montagna, C. Moritz, V. Mulk, A. Naumoski, I. Navodaru, J. Padisák, S. Pálsson, K. Panksep, L. Penev, A. Petrusek, M. Pfannkuchen, C. Primmer, B. Rinkevich, A. Rotter, A. Schmidt-Kloiber, P. Segurado, A. Speksnijder, P. Stoev, M. Strand, S. Šulčius, P. Sundberg, M. Traugott, C. Tsigenopoulos, X. Turon, A. Valentini, B. van der Hoorn, G. Várbíró, M. Vasquez Hadjilyra, J. Viguri, I. Vitonytė, A. Vogler, T. Vrålstad, W. Wägele, R. Wenne, A. Winding, G. Woodward, B. Zegura & J. Zimmermann, 2016. DNAqua-Net: developing new genetic tools for bioassessment and monitoring of aquatic ecosystems in Europe. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e11321. · DOI
  53. Leray, M., J. Y. Yang, C. P. Meyer, S. C. Mills, N. Agudelo, V. Ranwez, J. T. Boehm & R. J. Machida, 2013. A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents. Frontiers in Zoology 10: 34. · DOI · Paper page
  54. Lewis, B., R. A. Griffiths & J. W. Wilkinson, 2016. Population status of great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) at sites subjected to development mitigation. The Herpetological Journal 27: 133–142.
  55. Li, J., L. Lawson Handley, D. S. Read & B. Hänfling, 2018. The effect of filtration method on the efficiency of environmental DNA capture and quantification via metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources 18: 1102–1114. · DOI
  56. Longcore, J. E., A. P. Pessier & D. K. Nichols, 1999. Batrachochytrium Dendrobatidis gen. et sp. nov., a chytrid pathogenic to amphibians. Mycologia 91: 219–227. · DOI
  57. Martel, A., A. Spitzen-van der Sluijs, M. Blooi, W. Bert, R. Ducatelle, M. C. Fisher, A. Woeltjes, W. Bosman, K. Chiers, F. Bossuyt & F. Pasmans, 2013. Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans sp. nov. causes lethal chytridiomycosis in amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: 15325–15329. · DOI · Paper page
  58. Mauvisseau, Q., A. Coignet, C. Delaunay, F. Pinet, D. Bouchon & C. Souty-Grosset, 2018. Environmental DNA as an efficient tool for detecting invasive crayfishes in freshwater ponds. Hydrobiologia 805: 163–175. · DOI · Paper page
  59. McKee, A. M., S. F. Spear & T. W. Pierson, 2015. The effect of dilution and the use of a post-extraction nucleic acid purification column on the accuracy, precision, and inhibition of environmental DNA samples. Biological Conservation 183: 70–76. · DOI · Paper page
  60. Meusnier, I., G. A. C. Singer, J.-F. Landry, D. A. Hickey, P. D. N. Hebert & M. Hajibabaei, 2008. A universal DNA mini-barcode for biodiversity analysis. BMC genomics 9: 214. · DOI · Paper page
  61. Mosher, B. A., K. P. Huyvaert & L. L. Bailey, 2018. Beyond the swab: ecosystem sampling to understand the persistence of an amphibian pathogen. Oecologia 188: 319–330. · DOI
  62. Nathan, L. M., M. Simmons, B. J. Wegleitner, C. L. Jerde & A. R. Mahon, 2014. Quantifying environmental DNA signals for aquatic invasive species across multiple detection platforms. Environmental Science & Technology 48: 12800–12806. · DOI
  63. Nicolet, P., J. Biggs, G. Fox, M. J. Hodson, C. Reynolds, M. Whitfield & P. Williams, 2004. The wetland plant and macroinvertebrate assemblages of temporary ponds in England and Wales. Biological Conservation 120: 261–278. · DOI · Paper page
  64. Niemiller, M. L., M. L. Porter, J. Keany, H. Gilbert, D. W. Fong, D. C. Culver, C. S. Hobson, K. D. Kendall, M. A. Davis & S. J. Taylor, 2017. Evaluation of eDNA for groundwater invertebrate detection and monitoring: a case study with endangered Stygobromus (Amphipoda: Crangonyctidae). Conservation Genetics Resources 10: 247–257. · DOI
  65. Piaggio, A. J., R. M. Engeman, M. W. Hopken, J. S. Humphrey, K. L. Keacher, W. E. Bruce & M. L. Avery, 2014. Detecting an elusive invasive species: a diagnostic PCR to detect Burmese python in Florida waters and an assessment of persistence of environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology Resources 14: 374–380. · DOI
  66. Raemy, M. & S. Ursenbacher, 2018. Detection of the European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis) by environmental DNA: is eDNA adequate for reptiles? Amphibia-Reptilia 39: 135–143. · DOI
  67. Rees, H. C., K. Bishop, D. J. Middleditch, J. R. M. Patmore, B. C. Maddison & K. C. Gough, 2014a. The application of eDNA for monitoring of the Great Crested Newt in the UK. Ecology and Evolution 4: 4023–4032. · DOI
  68. Rees, H. C., B. C. Maddison, D. J. Middleditch, J. R. M. Patmore & K. C. Gough, 2014b. REVIEW: The detection of aquatic animal species using environmental DNA—a review of eDNA as a survey tool in ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 1450–1459. · DOI · Paper page
  69. Rees, H. C., C. A. Baker, D. S. Gardner, B. C. Maddison & K. C. Gough, 2017. The detection of great crested newts year round via environmental DNA analysis. BMC Research Notes 10: 327. · DOI
  70. Robinson, C. V., T. M. U. Webster, J. Cable, J. James & S. Consuegra, 2018. Simultaneous detection of invasive signal crayfish, endangered white-clawed crayfish and the crayfish plague pathogen using environmental DNA. Biological Conservation 222: 241–252. · DOI
  71. Robson, H. L. A., T. H. Noble, R. J. Saunders, S. K. A. Robson, D. W. Burrows & D. R. Jerry, 2016. Fine tuning for the tropics: application of eDNA technology for invasive fish detection in tropical freshwater ecosystems. Molecular Ecology Resources 16: 922–932. · DOI
  72. Sayer, C., E. Shilland, H. Greaves, B. Dawson, I. Patmore, D. Emson, E. Alderton, P. Robinson, K. Andrews, J. Axmacher & E. Wiik, 2013. Managing Britain’s ponds—conservation lessons from a Norfolk farm. British Wildlife 25: 21–28.
  73. Schmidt, B. R., K. Marc, S. Ursenbacher, O. J. Hyman & J. P. Collins, 2013. Site occupancy models in the analysis of environmental DNA presence/absence surveys: a case study of an emerging amphibian pathogen. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4: 646–653. · DOI · Paper page
  74. Sellers, G. S., C. Di Muri, A. Gómez & B. Hänfling, 2018. Mu-DNA: a modular universal DNA extraction method adaptable for a wide range of sample types. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 2: e24556. · DOI
  75. Smart, A. S., R. Tingley, A. R. Weeks, A. R. van Rooyen & M. A. McCarthy, 2015. Environmental DNA sampling is more sensitive than a traditional survey technique for detecting an aquatic invader. Ecological Applications 25: 1944–1952. · DOI
  76. Spear, S. F., J. D. Groves, L. A. Williams & L. P. Waits, 2015. Using environmental DNA methods to improve detectability in a hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) monitoring program. Biological Conservation 183: 38–45. · DOI · Paper page
  77. Spens, J., A. R. Evans, D. Halfmaerten, S. W. Knudsen, M. E. Sengupta, S. S. T. Mak, E. E. Sigsgaard & M. Hellström, 2016. Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8: 635–645. · DOI · Paper page
  78. Strand, D. A., J. Jussila, S. I. Johnsen, S. Viljamaa-Dirks, L. Edsman, J. Wiik-Nielsen, H. Viljugrein, F. Engdahl & T. Vrålstad, 2014. Detection of crayfish plague spores in large freshwater systems. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 544–553. · DOI
  79. Strickler, K. M., A. K. Fremier & C. S. Goldberg, 2015. Quantifying effects of UV-B, temperature, and pH on eDNA degradation in aquatic microcosms. Biological Conservation 183: 85–92. · DOI
  80. Takahara, T., T. Minamoto, H. Yamanaka, H. Doi & Z. Kawabata, 2012. Estimation of fish biomass using environmental DNA. PLoS ONE 7: e35868. · DOI
  81. Takahara, T., T. Minamoto & H. Doi, 2015. Effects of sample processing on the detection rate of environmental DNA from the Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio). Biological Conservation 183: 64–69. · DOI
  82. Takahashi, M. K., M. J. Meyer, C. Mcphee, J. R. Gaston, M. D. Venesky & B. F. Case, 2018. Seasonal and diel signature of eastern hellbender environmental DNA. The Journal of Wildlife Management 82: 217–225. · DOI
  83. Thomsen, P. F. & E. Willerslev, 2015. Environmental DNA—an emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biological Conservation 183: 4–18. · DOI · Paper page
  84. Thomsen, P. F., L. L. Iversen, C. Wiuf, M. Rasmussen, M. T. P. Gilbert, L. Orlando & E. Willerslev, 2012. Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology 21: 2565–2573. · DOI · Paper page
  85. Tillotson, M. D., R. P. Kelly, J. J. Duda, M. Hoy, J. Kralj & T. P. Quinn, 2018. Concentrations of environmental DNA (eDNA) reflect spawning salmon abundance at fine spatial and temporal scales. Biological Conservation 220: 1–11. · DOI · Paper page
  86. Torresdal, J. D., A. D. Farrell & C. S. Goldberg, 2017. Environmental DNA detection of the golden tree Frog (Phytotriades auratus) in Bromeliads. PLoS ONE 12: e0168787. · DOI
  87. Tréguier, A., J.-M. Paillisson, T. Dejean, A. Valentini, M. A. Schlaepfer & J.-M. Roussel, 2014. Environmental DNA surveillance for invertebrate species: advantages and technical limitations to detect invasive crayfish Procambarus clarkii in freshwater ponds. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 871–879. · DOI · Paper page
  88. Turner, C. R., M. A. Barnes, C. C. Y. Xu, S. E. Jones, C. L. Jerde & D. M. Lodge, 2014. Particle size distribution and optimal capture of aqueous macrobial eDNA. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5: 676–684. · DOI
  89. Turner, C. R., K. L. Uy & R. C. Everhart, 2015. Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water. Biological Conservation 183: 93–102. · DOI · Paper page
  90. Ushio, M., H. Fukuda, T. Inoue, K. Makoto, O. Kishida, K. Sato, K. Murata, M. Nikaido, T. Sado, Y. Sato, M. Takeshita, W. Iwasaki, H. Yamanaka, M. Kondoh & M. Miya, 2017. Environmental DNA enables detection of terrestrial mammals from forest pond water. Molecular Ecology Resources 17: e63–e65. · DOI
  91. Ushio, M., H. Murakami, R. Masuda, T. Sado, M. Miya, S. Sakurai, H. Yamanaka, T. Minamoto & M. Kondoh, 2018a. Quantitative monitoring of multispecies fish environmental DNA using high-throughput sequencing. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 2: e23297. · DOI
  92. Ushio, M., K. Murata, T. Sado, I. Nishiumi, M. Takeshita, W. Iwasaki & M. Miya, 2018b. Demonstration of the potential of environmental DNA as a tool for the detection of avian species. Scientific Reports 8: 4493. · DOI
  93. Valentini, A., P. Taberlet, C. Miaud, R. Civade, J. Herder, P. F. Thomsen, E. Bellemain, A. Besnard, E. Coissac, F. Boyer, C. Gaboriaud, P. Jean, N. Poulet, N. Roset, G. H. Copp, P. Geniez, D. Pont, C. Argillier, J.-M. Baudoin, T. Peroux, A. J. Crivelli, A. Olivier, M. Acqueberge, M. Le Brun, P. R. Møller, E. Willerslev & T. Dejean, 2016. Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology 25: 929–942. · DOI · Paper page
  94. Walker, S. F., M. B. Salas, D. Jenkins, T. W. J. Garner, A. A. Cunningham, A. D. Hyatt, J. Bosch & M. C. Fisher, 2007. Environmental detection of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in a temperate climate. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 77: 105–112. · DOI
  95. Weltz, K., J. M. Lyle, J. Ovenden, J. A. T. Morgan, D. A. Moreno & J. M. Semmens, 2017. Application of environmental DNA to detect an endangered marine skate species in the wild. PLoS ONE 12: e0178124. · DOI
  96. Williams, K. E., K. P. Huyvaert & A. J. Piaggio, 2016. No filters, no fridges: a method for preservation of water samples for eDNA analysis. BMC Research Notes 9: 298. · DOI
  97. Yamanaka, H., T. Minamoto, J. Matsuura, S. Sakurai, S. Tsuji, H. Motozawa, M. Hongo, Y. Sogo, N. Kakimi, I. Teramura, M. Sugita, M. Baba & A. Kondo, 2016. A simple method for preserving environmental DNA in water samples at ambient temperature by addition of cationic surfactant. Limnology 18: 233–241. · DOI
  98. Zeale, M. R. K., R. K. Butlin, G. L. A. Barker, D. C. Lees & G. Jones, 2011. Taxon-specific PCR for DNA barcoding arthropod prey in bat faeces. Molecular Ecology Resources 11: 236–244. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Harper, L. R., Buxton, A. S., Rees, H. C., Bruce, K., Brys, R., Halfmaerten, D., Read, D. S., Watson, H. V., Sayer, C. D., Jones, E. P., Priestley, V., Mächler, E., Múrria, C., Garcés-Pastor, S., Medupin, C., Burgess, K., Benson, G., Boonham, N., Griffiths, R. A., Lawson Handley, L., & Hänfling, B.
Venue
Hydrobiologia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-09-03
Volume
826
Issue
1
Pages
25-41
ISSN
  • 0018-8158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-5117
DOI
10.1007/s10750-018-3750-5
OpenAlex
W2889134269
Cited by
262
References
6
FWCI
15.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.