2022
DOI: 10.1101/2022.05.20.492886
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Environmental DNA reveals invasive crayfish microbial associates and ecosystem-wide biodiversity before and after eradication

Abstract: Biodiversity monitoring in conservation projects is essential to understand environmental status and recovery. However, traditional field surveys can be biased towards visual detection and/or focused on measuring the biodiversity of a limited set of taxa. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide a new approach to biodiversity monitoring that has the potential to sample a taxonomically broader set of organisms with similar effort, but these approaches are still in the early stages of development and testing. He… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 93 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We investigated whether the proportions of ProK typically used for blood and tissue DNA extractions were necessary for eDNA water samples from oligotrophic marine environments. We found no significant effect on the diversity and composition of recovered taxa among ProK quantities including none—even with taxa such as Malacostracan Arthropods that are known to be difficult to detect in eDNA samples (Ballare et al., 2023). Unlike studies showing that the addition of ProK increased DNA yield for targeted species (human genomic DNA in blood samples—Qamar et al., 2017; common carp, Cyptinus carpio carpio , from eDNA water samples — Tsuji et al., 2017), there is no indication in our study that higher ProK amounts increased DNA yield or influenced the quantity of reads for any given ZOTU.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…We investigated whether the proportions of ProK typically used for blood and tissue DNA extractions were necessary for eDNA water samples from oligotrophic marine environments. We found no significant effect on the diversity and composition of recovered taxa among ProK quantities including none—even with taxa such as Malacostracan Arthropods that are known to be difficult to detect in eDNA samples (Ballare et al., 2023). Unlike studies showing that the addition of ProK increased DNA yield for targeted species (human genomic DNA in blood samples—Qamar et al., 2017; common carp, Cyptinus carpio carpio , from eDNA water samples — Tsuji et al., 2017), there is no indication in our study that higher ProK amounts increased DNA yield or influenced the quantity of reads for any given ZOTU.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 54%