Environmental DNA Monitoring: Better Tracking of Endangered, Rare, Cryptic, and Invasive Species

Ota, William; Hall, Caitlyn; Malloy, John; Clark, Morgan A

doi:10.38126/jspg170117

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless and importantly, we did detect two fish species, both of which are known to be invasive species. Animal monitoring is commonly used not only to detect the presence of rare species but also the presence of invasive species, as they may represent a serious challenge to the health of ecosystems (Ota et al, 2020 ). In aquatic ecosystems, invasive fish can have extreme negative consequences on biodiversity and therefore their monitoring is of vital importance (Trebitz et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The potential of aquatic bloodfeeding and nonbloodfeeding leeches as a tool for iDNA characterisation

Lynggaard

Oceguera‐Figueroa

Kvist

et al. 2021

Molecular Ecology Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leeches (Hirudinea sensu Tessler, de Carle, et al., 2018) are found on all continents except Antarctica (Sket & Trontelj, 2008). There are around 900 known leech species (Magalhães et al., 2021) and these have varying and important roles in food webs; they can be ectoparasitic (or, on occasion, endoparasitic: Mann & Tyler, 1963), predatory, intermediate and final hosts for parasites (Sawyer, 1986), vectors of hemogregarine and trypanosome blood para-

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The potential of aquatic bloodfeeding and nonbloodfeeding leeches as a tool for iDNA characterisation

Lynggaard

Oceguera‐Figueroa

Kvist

et al. 2021

Molecular Ecology Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, and importantly, we did detect two fish species, both of which are known to be invasive species. Animal monitoring is commonly used not only to detect the presence of rare species but also the presence of invasive species, as they may represent a serious challenge to the health of ecosystems (Ota, Hall, Malloy, & Clark, 2020). In aquatic ecosystems, invasive fish can have extreme negative consequences on biodiversity and therefore their monitoring is of vital importance (Trebitz et al, 2017).…”

Section: Non-haemadipsid Leeches For Animal Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

The potential of aquatic haematophagous, liquidosomatophagous and macrophagous leeches as a tool for iDNA characterisation

Lynggaard

Oceguera‐Figueroa²,

Kvist³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leeches play important roles in food webs due to their abundance, diversity and feeding habits. Studies using invertebrate-derived DNA (iDNA) extracted from leech gut contents to target vertebrate DNA have focused on the Indo-Pacific region and mainly leveraged the leech family Haemadipsidae, composed of haematophagous terrestrial leeches, while the aquatic haematophagous, liquidosomatophagous and macrophagous counterparts have largely been disregarded. While there is general knowledge regarding the taxonomic groups that leeches prefer to feed on, detailed taxonomic resolution is still missing and therefore, their potential use for monitoring animals is not known. In this study, 116 non-haemadipsid leeches belonging to 12 species and spanning the three feeding habits were collected in Mexico and Canada. We used DNA metabarcoding to investigate their diet and assess their potential use for vertebrate monitoring. We detected vertebrate taxa from five orders including fish, turtles and birds in the diet of the aquatic haematophagous leeches; eight invertebrate orders of annelids, arthropods and molluscs in the liquidosomatophagous leeches; and ten orders of invertebrates belonging to Arthropoda and Annelida, as well as one vertebrate and one parasitic nematode, in the macrophagous leeches. These results show the potential use of iDNA from the gut content of aquatic haematophagous leeches for retrieving vertebrate taxa, and from macrophagous and liquidosomatophagous counterparts for invertebrates. Our study provides information about the dietary range of the freshwater leeches and the non-haemadipsid terrestrial leech and proof-of-concept for the use of non-haemadipsid leeches for animal monitoring, expanding our knowledge of the use of iDNA from leech gut contents to North America.

show abstract

“…For example, for freshwater semi‐aquatic mammal species, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies at least 12% as “data deficient” and considers population trends for 37% of all freshwater semi‐aquatic mammal species to be “unknown” (Hood, 2020a; IUCN, 2019). New sampling approaches could counter these deficiencies and unknown trends for more cryptic species (Jerde et al., 2011; Ota et al., 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi‐method sampling increases detectability and assessment of spatio‐temporal interactions of mammals and birds in wetland habitats

Hood

2024

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freshwater habitats support high levels of biodiversity and provide important habitat for wetland‐dependent taxa; however, impairment of aquatic connectivity through wetland loss, stream alterations and light pollution impacts species persistence and community resilience. Quantifying occupancy of these habitats to assess their use by mammals and birds can be challenging, especially for cryptic species. This study examines wetland habitat use by mammals and birds, and their spatial and temporal relationships within the Beaver Hills Biosphere in Alberta, Canada. As part of a multi‐method detection approach, camera boxes, cameras on beaver dams, and camera rafts allowed for multivariate analyses to determine temporal and spatial patterns of habitat use and species associations, while field sampling and environmental DNA (eDNA) provided data on site occupancy by a subset of semi‐aquatic mammals. From ~50,000 images, over 84 species were detected, including 52 species of birds and 25 species of mammals. Several species were spatially associated, and although most species of mammals exhibited temporal overlap, there were distinct differences, especially on beaver dams where predators such as coyotes and white‐tailed deer shared the same space. Temporally, birds were detected most often during the day and mammals at night. During new moon phases, use of beaver dams by beavers decreased dramatically, and use of camera rafts by muskrats increased. Winter field surveys allowed for a broad overview of wetland occupancy and abundance of some species, particularly by beavers and muskrats, and occasionally winter use by other semi‐aquatic mammals. Where there was limited detection of more cryptic species of semi‐aquatic mammals, eDNA analysis successfully detected American water shrew, American mink, North American river otter and northern bog lemming more often than camera and field methods. Applying a multi‐method monitoring approach for mammals and birds in wetland habitats is critical at a time when freshwater systems are experiencing dramatic declines in relative abundance of monitored wildlife populations, with many of these species underrepresented in conventional surveys.

show abstract

Environmental DNA Monitoring: Better Tracking of Endangered, Rare, Cryptic, and Invasive Species

Cited by 6 publications

References 24 publications

The potential of aquatic bloodfeeding and nonbloodfeeding leeches as a tool for iDNA characterisation

The potential of aquatic bloodfeeding and nonbloodfeeding leeches as a tool for iDNA characterisation

The potential of aquatic haematophagous, liquidosomatophagous and macrophagous leeches as a tool for iDNA characterisation

Multi‐method sampling increases detectability and assessment of spatio‐temporal interactions of mammals and birds in wetland habitats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About