Facial reconstruction

Search LJMU Research Online

Browse Repository | Browse E-Theses

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of pond water as a tool to survey conservation and management priority mammals

Harper, LR, Handley, LL, Carpenter, AI, Ghazali, M, Di Muri, C, Macgregor, CJ, Logan, TW, Law, A, Breithaupt, T, Read, DS, McDevitt, AD and Hanfling, B (2019) Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of pond water as a tool to survey conservation and management priority mammals. Biological Conservation, 238. ISSN 0006-3207

[img] Text
Harper_et_al_bioRxiv_manuscript_12.08.19.pdf - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only until 4 September 2020.
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (1MB)

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding can identify terrestrial taxa utilising aquatic habitats alongside aquatic communities, but terrestrial species' eDNA dynamics are understudied. We evaluated eDNA metabarcoding for monitoring semi-aquatic and terrestrial mammals, specifically nine species of conservation or management concern, and examined spatiotemporal variation in mammal eDNA signals. We hypothesised eDNA signals would be stronger for semi-aquatic than terrestrial mammals, and at sites where individuals exhibited behaviours. In captivity, we sampled waterbodies at points where behaviours were observed (‘directed’ sampling) and at equidistant intervals along the shoreline (‘stratified’ sampling). We surveyed natural ponds (N = 6) where focal species were present using stratified water sampling, camera traps, and field signs. eDNA samples were metabarcoded using vertebrate-specific primers. All focal species were detected in captivity. eDNA signal strength did not differ between directed and stratified samples across or within species, between semi-aquatic or terrestrial species, or according to behaviours. eDNA was evenly distributed in artificial waterbodies, but unevenly distributed in natural ponds. Survey methods deployed at natural ponds shared three species detections. Metabarcoding missed badger and red fox recorded by cameras and field signs, but detected small mammals these tools overlooked, e.g. water vole. Terrestrial mammal eDNA signals were weaker and detected less frequently than semi-aquatic mammal eDNA signals. eDNA metabarcoding could enhance mammal monitoring through large-scale, multi-species distribution assessment for priority and difficult to survey species, and provide early indication of range expansions or contractions. However, eDNA surveys need high spatiotemporal resolution and metabarcoding biases require further investigation before routine implementation.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: 05 Environmental Sciences, 06 Biological Sciences, 07 Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
Subjects: Q Science > QH Natural history > QH301 Biology
Q Science > QH Natural history > QH426 Genetics
Q Science > QL Zoology
Divisions: Biological & Environmental Sciences (new Sep 19)
Publisher: Elsevier
Related URLs:
Date Deposited: 02 Jul 2020 10:45
Last Modified: 02 Jul 2020 10:45
DOI or Identification number: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108225
URI: http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/13226

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item