Zoological applications for environmental DNA: detection, diversity, and health

Gleeson, Dianne

doi:10.1080/03014223.2021.1961562

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This emphasizes the importance of current plans to de- Nevertheless, eDNA methods are continuing to improve, with the development of new assays, decreasing costs of sequencing, and regular additions to the reference database together enhancing their potential for species detection and identification. Indeed, eDNA has revolutionized the way we monitor biodiversity, and significant recent efforts dedicated to protocol development and optimization (Schenekar, 2022), have enhanced eDNA efficiency and use (Gleeson, 2021). Here, we explored the effects of filter size and spatial and temporal sampling schemes on biodiversity detection using eDNA in wetland environments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing an eDNA approach for wetland biomonitoring: Insights on technical and conventional approaches

Bird,

Dutton,

Wilkinson

et al. 2024

Environmental DNA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wetlands are ecologically and culturally significant ecosystems that are experiencing biodiversity declines globally. Biomonitoring techniques that use environmental DNA (eDNA) to detect and monitor biodiversity are well established in lake, riverine, and marine ecosystems. However, their use in wetlands requires further development due to the presence of sediments that block eDNA filters to limit water filtration, alongside a lack of standardized methodology. In this study, we examined eDNA dynamics to understand spatiotemporal biodiversity patterns in an Aotearoa New Zealand wetland and to optimize their application to wetland‐specific challenges. We sampled four sites across Opuatia Wetland at three time points during an austral spring. We conducted conventional taxonomic surveys, tested three different filter sizes (1.2 μm, 5 μm, and semi‐quantitative dacron filters), and assessed our ability to detect foreign DNA (from kea; Nestor notabilis) at different time points and distances post‐release. We found significant differences in DNA sequence composition across time and space, and when using different sized filters. eDNA data generally complemented (versus replaced) conventional survey and identification methods, with certain species only detected by one method or the other. Taxonomic resolution of conventional sampling and identification methods often exceeded that of eDNA. Foreign DNA was detectable 10 m from its release point for up to 1 week post‐release. Our results provide new considerations for future eDNA research in wetland environments, where rapid biomonitoring techniques are needed to support conservation and preservation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%