Non-invasive genetic sampling is one of our most powerful and ethical tools for threatened species population monitoring: a reply to Lavery et al.

Abstract

Noninvasive genetic sampling (genetic tagging) of individuals is one of the most powerful and ethical tools for threatened species population monitoring. A recent review of the threats to Australia’s rock-wallabies (Petrogale spp.) and the methods for their monitoring stated that noninvasive genetic sampling (faecal DNA analysis) is not viable for estimating population size and trends for species in this genus. We feel that it is important to respond as such statements have the potential to stifle the development and application of an important tool for threatened species monitoring and lead to lost opportunities for collection of high-quality data to inform conservation of these species. We take the opportunity to describe the breadth of successful application of noninvasive genetic sampling for monitoring rock wallabies and other mammal taxa, the research and development requirements for successful implementation of noninvasive DNA-based population monitoring and thoughts on why this powerful approach has not been implemented to its full potential in many jurisdictions. We need to be careful not to dismiss one of the most powerful and ethical threatened species monitoring tools due to lack of familiarity with the requirements for its implementation.

A Comparison of Non-Destructive Visceral Swab and Tissue Biopsy Sampling Methods for Genotyping-by-Sequencing in the Freshwater Mussel <em>Fusconaia askewi</em>

“…Identifying DNA collection methods that minimize mortality and disruption to organisms is important when the taxa being studied are rare or are of high conservation priority [6][7][8][9][10]. Our results demonstrated that both swabbing and tissue biopsy collection…”

A method for noninvasive individual genotyping of black‐footed cat (Felis nigripes)

“…A noninvasive approach to monitor populations of scarce species such as the black‐footed cat, could be more sustainable and reliable (Banks & Piggott, 2022 ; Piggott et al., 2008 ). DNA extracted from scats reduces the need to handle the animal (Ramon‐Laca et al., 2015 ) and could provide information on individual occupancy (Fernando et al., 2003 ), paternity and kinship (Constable et al., 2001 ; Wang et al., 2015 ), genetic diversity (Mengulluoglu et al., 2019 ), species identification and sex (Dalén et al., 2004 ; Kurose et al., 2005 ), identifying hybrids (Adams et al., 2003 ), and estimating population sizes (Banks et al., 2002 ; Eggert et al., 2003 ; Piggott et al., 2006 ).…”

Scat DNA as a non-invasive method for estimating the abundance of the vulnerable mala (Lagorchestes hirsutus)

“…DNA sampling methods, however, are not infallible, and there is one major limitation that must be assessed via pilot studies for each new study species prior to using the method as a monitoring tool (Banks and Piggott 2022). DNA recovered from scats is often of low quantity and quality (Carpenter and Dziminski 2017), resulting in a high risk of genotyping errors (allelic dropout and false alleles) (Piggott and Taylor 2003 a ).…”