From eDNA to citizen science: emerging tools for the early detection of invasive species

Abstract

Biological invasions are a form of global change threatening biodiversity, ecosystem stability, and human health, and cost government agencies billions of dollars in remediation and eradication programs. Attempts to eradicate introduced species are most successful when detection of newly established populations occurs early in the invasion process. We review existing and emerging tools -specifically environmental DNA (eDNA), chemical approaches, remote sensing, citizen science, and agency-based monitoring -for surveillance and monitoring of invasive species. For each tool, we consider the benefits provided, examine challenges and limitations, discuss data sharing and integration, and suggest best practice implementations for the early detection of invasive species. Programs that promote public participation in large-scale biodiversity identification and monitoring (such as iNaturalist and eBird) may be the best resources for early detection. However, data from these platforms must be monitored and used by agencies that can mount appropriate response efforts. Control efforts are more likely to succeed when they are focused on early detection and prevention, thereby saving considerable time and resources.

Assessing the efficacy of eDNA metabarcoding for measuring microbial biodiversity within forest ecosystems

“…Despite current potential challenges and potential biases that need to be worked out through future study, our results have given us a promising look into how eDNA metabarcoding can be used to characterize terrestrial forest ecosystem microbial communities, and contribute to a more accurate description of community structure and function. Even if we are not quite at the point where using eDNA metabarcoding will be a viable method to assess population genetic diversity, perhaps through building upon recent advances in our understanding of predicting genotype–phenotype relationships 125 , 126 , in conjunction with taking a functional-trait approach to modeling generalizable ecosystem dynamics 11 , we will be headed towards a powerful methodology for monitoring global-scale population dynamics among species 39 . We are confident that eDNA metabarcoding will increasingly become a standardized and valuable tool for monitoring global biodiversity, thereby reducing unnecessary costs and impacts from sampling organisms directly, and will find increasing utility for detecting invasive species, detecting cryptic or rare species, and will ultimately help conserve endangered species, and ecological communities associated with imperiled habitats on Earth.…”

The role of passive surveillance and citizen science in plant health

“…Early detection presents unique data challenges, including lack of previous encounters with the pest which may result in particularly low detection abilities, compared to experts (Fitzpatrick et al 2009 ). However, citizen science still offers much potential for early detection of invasive pests, given the large number of potential observers (Larson et al 2020 ; Silvertown 2009 ). Early detection has been the focus of one farmer-led passive surveillance study which investigated the detection of low-pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) in Italian turkey flocks (Comin et al 2012 ).…”

“…Interpreting and using them to estimate the prevalence of a pest and inform biosecurity measures is thus challenging. The use of species population data collected by citizen scientists has been the focus of recent reviews across ecology and conservation (Dobson et al 2020 ; Larson et al 2020 ; Isaac and Pocock 2015 ; Pocock et al 2017a ; Dickinson et al 2010 ; Crall et al 2015 ). We build on these foundations to highlight the role of passive surveillance data in plant health.…”

Read counts from environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding reflect fish abundance and biomass in drained ponds

“…In the present study, there was no evidence of higher contamination in open filter membranes compared to Sterivex filters indicating that preventing on-site and in-lab contaminations is sufficient to minimise/avoid DNA contaminations regardless of the filter types choice. The use of Sterivex filters, or enclosed filters in general, is however more amenable to large scale monitoring programs for environmental managers or citizen science projects (Biggs et al, 2015;Buxton et al, 2018;Larson et al, 2020).…”