Early detection monitoring for aquatic non-indigenous species: Optimizing surveillance, incorporating advanced technologies, and identifying research needs

Abstract

Following decades of ecologic and economic impacts from a growing list of nonindigenous and invasive species, government and management entities are committing to systematic early- detection monitoring (EDM). This has reinvigorated investment in the science underpinning such monitoring, as well as the need to convey that science in practical terms to those tasked with EDM implementation. Using the context of nonindigenous species in the North American Great Lakes, this article summarizes the current scientific tools and knowledge - including limitations, research needs, and likely future developments - relevant to various aspects of planning and conducting comprehensive EDM. We begin with the scope of the effort, contrasting target-species with broad-spectrum monitoring, reviewing information to support prioritization based on species and locations, and exploring the challenge of moving beyond individual surveys towards a coordinated monitoring network. Next, we discuss survey design, including effort to expend and its allocation over space and time. A section on sample collection and analysis overviews the merits of collecting actual organisms versus shed DNA, reviews the capabilities and limitations of identification by morphology, DNA target markers, or DNA barcoding, and examines best practices for sample handling and data verification. We end with a section addressing the analysis of monitoring data, including methods to evaluate survey performance and characterize and communicate uncertainty. Although the body of science supporting EDM implementation is already substantial, research and information needs (many already actively being addressed) include: better data to support risk assessments that guide choice of taxa and locations to monitor; improved understanding of spatiotemporal scales for sample collection; further development of DNA target markers, reference barcodes, genomic workflows, and synergies between DNA-based and morphology-based taxonomy; and tools and information management systems for better evaluating and communicating survey outcomes and uncertainty.

Comparison of fish detections, community diversity, and relative abundance using environmental DNA metabarcoding and traditional gears

“…However, significant work is needed to develop standard operating procedures associated with eDNA metabarcoding surveys in early detection efforts (Trebitz et al, 2017). However, significant work is needed to develop standard operating procedures associated with eDNA metabarcoding surveys in early detection efforts (Trebitz et al, 2017).…”

“…Given that our results confirm that species detections among eDNA and traditional gear sampling events are similar, management agencies can have greater confidence that eDNA positives are linked with species presence. However, significant work is needed to develop standard operating procedures associated with eDNA metabarcoding surveys in early detection efforts (Trebitz et al, 2017).…”

“…Such methods are being considered in AIS early detection applications (Trebitz et al, 2017). However, additional examinations of data obtained from eDNA and traditional sampling approaches would provide insights to inform future surveillance strategies (but see Hänfling., 2016;Olds et al, 2016 for general fish community comparisons in lentic and lotic systems, respectively).…”

Assessing the effect of landscape features on pond colonisation by an elusive amphibian invader using environmental DNA

“…The ongoing increase in the number of alien invasive species worldwide (Seebens et al, 2017) requires more effective detection techniques (Trebitz et al, 2017). Environmental DNA (eDNA) has been recently advocated as a powerful means to detect aquatic invasive species (Goldberg et al, 2016).…”

International Barcode of Life: Focus on big biodiversity in South Africa

“…Environmental DNA refers to DNA extracted not directly from organisms (nor from discernible organismal fragments) but from diverse types of environmental samples, such as from freshwaters (e. The intensification of research in this area reflects the exciting possibilities as well as the diverse sources of demand for these novel methods. For example, regular and affordable biomonitoring of biological communities will enable the early detection of invasive species (Callander et al;MacIsaac;Trebitz et al 2017), substantially increasing prospects for the elimination or mitigation of invasive species and their harmful effects. Other areas of interest include the need to gain a better understanding of the distributions of threatened species, using more efficient as well as non-invasive field sampling methods.…”