Fishing in the Water: Effect of Sampled Water Volume on Environmental DNA-Based Detection of Macroinvertebrates

Abstract

Accurate detection of organisms is crucial for the effective management of threatened and invasive species because false detections directly affect the implementation of management actions. The use of environmental DNA (eDNA) as a species detection tool is in a rapid development stage; however, concerns about accurate detections using eDNA have been raised. We evaluated the effect of sampled water volume (0.25 to 2 L) on the detection rate for three macroinvertebrate species. Additionally, we tested (depending on the sampled water volume) what amount of total extracted DNA should be screened to reduce uncertainty in detections. We found that all three species were detected in all volumes of water. Surprisingly, however, only one species had a positive relationship between an increased sample volume and an increase in the detection rate. We conclude that the optimal sample volume might depend on the species−habitat combination and should be tested for the system where management actions are warranted. Nevertheless, we minimally recommend sampling water volumes of 1 L and screening at least 14 L of extracted eDNA for each sample to reduce uncertainty in detections when studying macroinvertebrates in rivers and using our molecular workflow. species. Additionally, we tested, depending on the sampled water volume, what amount of total 28 extracted DNA should be screened in order to reduce uncertainty in detections. We found that all 29 three species were detected in all volumes of water. Surprisingly, however, only one species had 30 a positive relationship between an increased sample volume and an increase in the detection rate. 31We conclude that the optimal sample volume may depend on the species-habitat combination and 32 should be tested for the system where management actions are warranted. Nevertheless, we 33 minimally recommend sampling water volumes of 1 L and screening at least 14 µL of extracted 34 eDNA for each sample to reduce uncertainty in detections when studying macroinvertebrates in 35 rivers and using our molecular workflow.

Environmental DNA detects a rare large river crayfish but with little relation to local abundance

“…However, false negatives can occur in eDNA studies for many reasons (Moyer et al., ; Wilcox et al., ) and have been attributed to sampling design choices like water sample volume or replication level in the field or laboratory (Ficetola et al., ; Mächler et al., ). Design improvements such as increased sample volume or replication may have allowed for improved detection in our study (Mächler, Deiner, Spahn, & Altermatt, ; Moyer et al., ), although such adjustments can also elevate the risk for false positives (Ficetola et al., ). The detectability of eDNA could also vary laterally across a stream channel, although we saw similar rates of detection between field replicates collected from stream margins and those collected mid‐channel.…”

Comparing eDNA metabarcoding and species collection for documenting Arctic metazoan biodiversity

“…Thus, a larger volume of filtered seawater for each sample (Shaw et al, 2016) and a greater sequencing depth would likely have improved the detection rate (Mächler, Deiner, Spahn, & Altermatt, 2016) …”

Recommendations for the Next Generation of Global Freshwater Biological Monitoring Tools

“…Classic indicators of freshwater diversity focus only on a small subset of taxonomic groups metabarcoding of pooled invertebrate samples), have highlighted the potential for these molecular methods to become a unifying and globally comparable indicator of freshwater diversity (Lodge et al 2012;Bohmann et al 2014;Mächler et al 2016). …”