2020
DOI: 10.1111/mec.15644
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multispecies models reveal that eDNA metabarcoding is more sensitive than backpack electrofishing for conducting fish surveys in freshwater streams

Abstract: Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling-the detection of environmental cellular or extracellular DNA-has the potential to improve the sensitivity and efficiency of biodiversity surveys, enabling the coverage needed for accurate monitoring at broad spatial scales (Deiner et al., 2015;Turner et al., 2014). In aquatic environments, eDNA sampling is safer for operators (Crookes et al., 2020) and less invasive to target animals compared to traditional sampling methods, such as trapping or electrofishing (Valentini et al.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
43
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 83 publications
(194 reference statements)
3
43
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The sensitivity, non-invasiveness, and cost-efficiency of environmental DNA (eDNA) based methods have been proven for diverse habitats and species making them powerful new tools for conservation biology and biodiversity assessments (Barnes and Turner, 2016;Deiner et al, 2017;Huerlimann et al, 2020). Regarding the detection of fish species, eDNA-based monitoring outperforms traditional methods such as electrofishing: for example, for the detection of the endangered European weather loach, Misgurnus fossilis (Sigsgaard et al, 2015), the assessment of fish communities in Australian streams (McColl-Gausden et al, 2020), and the distribution of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis in a US watershed (Evans et al, 2017). The manifold successes of eDNA-based species detection lead to a call for more standardization and better reporting practices (Goldberg et al, 2016;Minamoto et al, 2020;Thalinger et al, 2021a) and to an international effort for implementing the technology into routine species monitoring (Leese et al, 2016;Pilliod et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sensitivity, non-invasiveness, and cost-efficiency of environmental DNA (eDNA) based methods have been proven for diverse habitats and species making them powerful new tools for conservation biology and biodiversity assessments (Barnes and Turner, 2016;Deiner et al, 2017;Huerlimann et al, 2020). Regarding the detection of fish species, eDNA-based monitoring outperforms traditional methods such as electrofishing: for example, for the detection of the endangered European weather loach, Misgurnus fossilis (Sigsgaard et al, 2015), the assessment of fish communities in Australian streams (McColl-Gausden et al, 2020), and the distribution of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis in a US watershed (Evans et al, 2017). The manifold successes of eDNA-based species detection lead to a call for more standardization and better reporting practices (Goldberg et al, 2016;Minamoto et al, 2020;Thalinger et al, 2021a) and to an international effort for implementing the technology into routine species monitoring (Leese et al, 2016;Pilliod et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sensitivity, non-invasiveness and cost-efficiency of environmental DNA (eDNA) based methods has been proven for diverse habitats and species making them powerful new tools for conservation biology and biodiversity assessments (Barnes and Turner, 2016; Deiner et al, 2017; Huerlimann et al, 2020). Regarding the detection of fish species, eDNA-based monitoring outperforms traditional methods such as electrofishing: for example, for the detection of the endangered European weather loach, Misgurnus fossilis (Sigsgaard et al, 2015), the assessment of fish communities in Australian streams (McColl‐Gausden et al, 2020), and the distribution of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis in a US watershed (Evans et al, 2017). The manifold successes of eDNA-based species detection lead to a call for more standardization and better reporting practices (Goldberg et al, 2016; Minamoto et al, 2020; Thalinger et al, 2020a) and to an international effort for implementing the technology into routine species monitoring (Leese et al, 2016; Pilliod et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In previous studies of eDNA metabarcoding, multispecies site occupancy models have been applied by aggregating sequence reads into binary detection/non-detection data (Doi et al 2019, Bush et al 2020, McClenaghan et al 2020, McColl-Gausden et al 2020. In such an approach, sequence read counts are not explicitly modeled, making it difficult to adequately decompose the combined effects of throughput and relative frequency of species sequences on the probability of species detection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The detection of species using eDNA may be more sensitive than that of traditional survey methods (Smart et al 2015, Yamamoto et al 2017, McColl-Gausden et al 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation