DNA-based identification of invasive alien species in relation to Canadian federal policy and law, and the basis of rapid-response management

Abstract

Managing invasive alien species in Canada requires reliable taxonomic identification as the basis of rapid-response management. This can be challenging, especially when organisms are small and lack morphological diagnostic features. DNA-based techniques, such as DNA barcoding, offer a reliable, rapid, and inexpensive toolkit for taxonomic identification of individual or bulk samples, forensic remains, and even environmental DNA. Well suited for this requirement, they could be more broadly deployed and incorporated into the operating policy and practices of Canadian federal departments and should be authorized under these agencies' articles of law. These include Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Parks Canada, and Health Canada. These efforts should be harmonized with the appropriate provisions of provincial jurisdictions, for example, the Ontario Invasive Species Act. This approach necessitates that a network of accredited, certified laboratories exists, and that updated DNA reference libraries are readily accessible. Harmonizing this approach is vital among Canadian federal agencies, and between the federal and provincial levels of government. Canadian policy and law must also be harmonized with that of the USA when detecting, and responding to, invasive species in contiguous lands and waters. Creating capacity in legislation for use of DNA-based identifications brings the authority to fund, train, deploy, and certify staff, and to refine further developments in this molecular technology.

From Barcodes to Biomes: Special Issues from the 6th International Barcode of Life Conference

“…Such methods can also be applied for detecting aquatic invasive species. While there is emerging usage of DNA barcoding and associated methods in the governmental sector (Adamowicz 2015a(Adamowicz , 2015b, Thomas et al (2016) call for DNA-based identification techniques to be extensively implemented and formally incorporated into federal and provincial policies and laws relating to the detection and management of invasive species in Canada. Studies that calibrate and compare multiple survey methods will be valuable foundations for practitioners seeking to apply the most suitable method for a given context.…”

Categorization of species as native or nonnative using DNA sequence signatures without a complete reference library

“…, Ashfaq and Hebert , Thomas et al. ), for phylogenetic and population genetic studies (Hajibabaei et al. ), and for observations of within‐species genetic diversity (e.g., Johnson et al.…”

“…, Ashfaq and Hebert , Thomas et al. ), the taxonomists needed to provide the foundational species‐level identifications to create reference libraries are themselves becoming endangered species (Gotelli , Agnarsson et al. , Wägele , Wheeler )!…”

“…One approach for collecting and analyzing sequence data that has become widely utilized is known as DNA sequence barcoding (also known as "DNA barcoding"; Hebert et al 2003, Savolainen et al 2005, Ratnasingham and Hebert 2007. This technique has been used in many contexts; including biodiversity inventories , cryptic species discovery (Hebert et al 2004a), species identification (Hebert et al 2003, 2004b, Kress et al 2005, species delimitation (Pons et al 2006), biomonitoring (Pilgrim et al 2011), biosecurity (Saunders 2009, Collins et al 2012, Dejean et al 2012, Porco et al 2013, Thomas et al 2016, for phylogenetic and population genetic studies (Hajibabaei et al 2007), and for observations of within-species genetic diversity (e.g., Johnson et al 2002, Havill et al 2018. While there are numerous well documented limitations to the uses of DNA barcoding, including when the technique is used to reconstruct ancient evolutionary relationships, when non-specific amplification is not accounted for, and when fixed intra-and inter-interspecific thresholds are utilized (Moritz and Cicero 2004, Thalmann et al 2004, DeSalle et al 2005, Meyer and Paulay 2005, Rubinoff et al 2006, Buhay 2009, Moulton et al 2010, one of the core uses for DNA barcoding is the comparison of query sequences to reference DNA sequences to determine the percentage of sequence similarity.…”

“…In the case of the last three outcomes, after the expenditure of time, money, and resources, the specimen in question remains unidentified, and for most research objectives provides little utility, though in some instances higher level categorizations (i.e., genus, family, order) may be obtained and be sufficient. While the collection of DNA barcode sequences from unidentified specimens provides useful genomic data, unfortunately at the same time that DNA barcoding techniques are being used with increasing frequency to guide management decisions (e.g., Park et al 2015), particularly for the identification of alien invasive species (Saunders 2009, Dejean et al 2012, Porco et al 2013, Thomas et al 2016, the taxonomists needed to provide the foundational species-level identifications to create reference libraries are themselves becoming endangered species (Gotelli 2004, Agnarsson et al 2007, W€ agele 2011, Wheeler 2014)! The Moorea BioCode project was established, in part, to address the coupled needs for increased sampling of underrepresented taxa in biodiverse tropical regions and hands-on training for taxonomic specialists (Field and Davies 2015).…”