4.7 Article

Seasonality, DNA degradation and spatial heterogeneity as drivers of eDNA detection dynamics

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 768, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144466

关键词

Environmental DNA; White-clawed crayfish; Seasonal variations; Heterogeneity; Degradation

资金

  1. University of Derby
  2. SureScreen Scientifics, UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we found that the concentrations of environmental DNA are influenced by seasonal variability, degradation rates, and micro-habitat heterogeneity, which can result in uncertainties in across-site and time comparisons using environmental DNA.
In recent years, eDNA-based assessments have evolved as valuable tools for research and conservation. Most eDNA-based applications rely on comparisons across time or space. However, temporal, and spatial dynamics of eDNA concentrations are shaped by various drivers that can affect the reliability of such comparative approaches. Here, we assessed (i) seasonal variability, (ii) degradation rates and (iii) micro-habitat heterogeneity of eDNA concentrations as key factors likely to inflict uncertainly in across site and time comparisons. In a controlled mesocosm experiment, using the white-clawed crayfish as a model organism, we found detection probabilities of technical replicates to vary substantially and range from as little as 20 to upwards of 80% between seasons. Further, degradation rates of crayfish eDNA were low and target eDNA was still detectable 14-21 days after the removal of crayfish. Finally, we recorded substantial small-scale in-situ heterogeneity and large variability among sampling sites in a single pond of merely 1000m(2) in size. Consequently, all three tested drivers of spatial and temporal variation have the potential to severely impact the reliability of eDNA-based site comparisons and need to be accounted for in sampling design and data analysis of field-based applications. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据