TY - JOUR
T1 - Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of pond water as a tool to survey conservation and management priority mammals
AU - Harper, Lynsey R.
AU - Lawson Handley, Lori
AU - Carpenter, Angus I.
AU - Ghazali, Muhammad
AU - Di Muri, Cristina
AU - Macgregor, Callum J.
AU - Logan, Thomas W.
AU - Law, Alan
AU - Breithaupt, Thomas
AU - Read, Daniel S.
AU - McDevitt, Allan D.
AU - Hanfling, Bernd
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was funded by the University of Hull, and D.S.R was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council award number NE/R016429/1 as part of the UK-SCAPE programme delivering National Capability. We would like to thank Gill Murray-Dickson (National Museums Scotland) and Helen Senn (RZSS Edinburgh Zoo) for feedback on the study design, and Richard Griffiths (DICE, University of Kent) for support with filtration of water samples from Wildwood Trust. We are grateful to staff at Wildwood Trust and RZSS Highland Wildlife Park for assisting with eDNA sampling from animal enclosures. We thank Richard Hampshire and volunteers at Tophill Low Nature Reserve for assisting with camera trap deployment. Tim Kohler (Natural England) and Paul Ramsay kindly gave permission to sample at Thorne Moors and the Bamff Estate respectively. L.R.H, B.H, and L.L.H conceived and designed the study. A.I.C and M.G coordinated sampling at Wildwood Trust and RZSS Highland Wildlife Park respectively. L.R.H, C.D.M, C.J.M, and T.L collected and filtered water samples. A.L, T.L, and T.B helped select natural ponds to be surveyed using eDNA, camera trapping, and field signs, and provided camera traps for the study. L.R.H, A.L, and T.L deployed camera traps, which were then collected and footage analysed by L.R.H. L.R.H processed samples in the laboratory with advice from C.D.M and A.M. D.S.R sequenced the final library. L.R.H completed bioinformatic processing of samples, and subsequent data analysis. L.R.H wrote the manuscript, which all authors contributed critically to drafts of and gave final approval for publication.
Funding Information:
This work was funded by the University of Hull , and D.S.R was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council award number NE/R016429/1 as part of the UK-SCAPE programme delivering National Capability. We would like to thank Gill Murray-Dickson (National Museums Scotland) and Helen Senn (RZSS Edinburgh Zoo) for feedback on the study design, and Richard Griffiths (DICE, University of Kent) for support with filtration of water samples from Wildwood Trust. We are grateful to staff at Wildwood Trust and RZSS Highland Wildlife Park for assisting with eDNA sampling from animal enclosures. We thank Richard Hampshire and volunteers at Tophill Low Nature Reserve for assisting with camera trap deployment. Tim Kohler (Natural England) and Paul Ramsay kindly gave permission to sample at Thorne Moors and the Bamff Estate respectively.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/10
Y1 - 2019/10
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - INHS
KW - Semi-aquatic mammals
KW - Field signs
KW - Terrestrial mammals
KW - Lentic
KW - Camera traps
KW - Monitoring
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071623930&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071623930&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108225
DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108225
M3 - Article
VL - 238
SP - UNSP 108225
JO - Biological Conservation
JF - Biological Conservation
M1 - 108225
ER -