2023
DOI: 10.1002/edn3.445
|View full text |Cite
|
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 health, complexity, and recovery. However, traditional field surveys can be expensive, time‐consuming, biased toward visual detection, and/or only measure 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 a similar effort, but many of these approaches are still in the early stages of devel… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
1

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 122 publications
0
0
1
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;com-mon 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: Discussioncontrasting
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;com-mon 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: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 54%