2022
DOI: 10.1002/edn3.351
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detecting endangered pinto abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) using environmental DNA: Comparison of ddPCR, qPCR, and conventional diver surveys

Abstract: Abalone populations along the Pacific Coast of North America are threatened. In the Salish Sea (Washington, USA), pinto abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) have failed to recover from intensive harvest after over 25 years of fishery closure, prompting a growing restoration effort. As these efforts expand, a persistent challenge is simply

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…abundance and age structure) and dispersal of the translocated fish that must combine various monitoring methods (such as those implemented in the present study) depending on the cost‐effectiveness in both economic and human resources. Species‐specific eDNA monitoring is increasingly used for assessing the distribution of rare or scarce species and has been shown to be more sensitive than conventional electrofishing and optical methods (Beng & Corlett, 2020; Brys et al, 2020; Dimond et al, 2022; Goldberg, Strickler & Fremier, 2018; Meulenbroek et al, 2022; Rojahn et al, 2021; Sepulveda et al, 2019). It should be noted that the presence of the Corfu killifish was confirmed with underwater footage and electrofishing only in the spring area, which was the release site, but these two methods did not detect the species in the mid‐section or lower section of the stream, indicating poor dispersal.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…abundance and age structure) and dispersal of the translocated fish that must combine various monitoring methods (such as those implemented in the present study) depending on the cost‐effectiveness in both economic and human resources. Species‐specific eDNA monitoring is increasingly used for assessing the distribution of rare or scarce species and has been shown to be more sensitive than conventional electrofishing and optical methods (Beng & Corlett, 2020; Brys et al, 2020; Dimond et al, 2022; Goldberg, Strickler & Fremier, 2018; Meulenbroek et al, 2022; Rojahn et al, 2021; Sepulveda et al, 2019). It should be noted that the presence of the Corfu killifish was confirmed with underwater footage and electrofishing only in the spring area, which was the release site, but these two methods did not detect the species in the mid‐section or lower section of the stream, indicating poor dispersal.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the eDNA from the frass or other debris may provide a clue about the target species 35,36,37,38 . For the detection of eDNA, the ddPCR has higher sensitivity over the real-time quantitative PCR, LAMP, and conventional PCR 29,30,39,40 . In this study, the ddPCR method can detect the DNA of C. pomonella at a minimum concentration of 1.43×10 − 2 ng/uL, which provides a potential tool to detect the eDNA of C. pomonella in the eld.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Until now, the LAMP assays have successfully been used to diagnose other plant pests [23][24][25][26][27][28] . For the detection of eDNA, the droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) has the advantage over real-time quantitative PCR, LAMP, and conventional PCR, especially in the detection sensitivity 29,30 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Species‐specific assays require the development of specific markers (Klymus et al., 2020 ), and are generally amplified using quantitative PCR (qPCR) or digital droplet PCR (ddPCR), either with or without probes to increase specificity (Brys et al., 2021 ). Some studies suggest that ddPCR is more sensitive than qPCR to detect rare species with low abundances in the environment (Dimond et al., 2022 ; Mauvisseau et al., 2019 , but see Johnsen et al., 2020 ). Additional advantages of ddPCR include a better tolerance to PCR inhibitors present in plants, soil, water, and food (Morisset et al., 2013 ; Rački et al., 2014 ) and the access to DNA absolute quantification without relying on a standard curve (Hunter et al., 2018 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%