Active eDNA Is More Cost-Effective Than Fyke Nets or Passive eDNA Collection When Monitoring the Invasion of an Alien Freshwater Fish

Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Lenore Morris, Leah S. Beesley, Emma R. Stevens, Daniel C. Gwinn, Josephine Hyde, Suzanne Thompson, Deirdre B. Gleeson, Michael M. Douglas
{"title":"Active eDNA Is More Cost-Effective Than Fyke Nets or Passive eDNA Collection When Monitoring the Invasion of an Alien Freshwater Fish","authors":"Lenore Morris,&nbsp;Leah S. Beesley,&nbsp;Emma R. Stevens,&nbsp;Daniel C. Gwinn,&nbsp;Josephine Hyde,&nbsp;Suzanne Thompson,&nbsp;Deirdre B. Gleeson,&nbsp;Michael M. Douglas","doi":"10.1002/edn3.70010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Monitoring alien species is critical to their management. However, early detection of invading alien freshwater fish can be challenging due to the difficulty of observing fish in low abundance. Environmental DNA (eDNA) has emerged as a new and potentially more sensitive method for sampling invasive species as compared to conventional methods, but the comparative financial cost is not often assessed. Adoption of eDNA by managers requires studies that showcase its cost-effectiveness relative to conventional approaches. Here we use eDNA to assist in the management of an aggressive alien fish, the pearl cichlid (<i>Geophagus brasiliensis</i>), that is invading an urban river in south-western Australia. We applied an occupancy model to survey data collected 6 years apart (2015, 2021) to assess how the species' distribution had changed and to evaluate whether an instream barrier had the potential to limit upstream invasion. To understand the effectiveness of eDNA, we used our model to quantify the relative efficiency (capture probability) of two eDNA sampling methods (active eDNA and passive eDNA) and fyke netting, as well as the number of replicate samples required per site to deliver &gt;95% detection. We coupled the number of replicates needed with the cost per replicate to determine the cost-efficiency of each method. We found that <i>G. brasiliensis</i> abundance was higher in downstream reaches in both survey years, and there was no evidence that its distribution had changed through time. However, <i>G. brasiliensis</i> was present above the instream barrier. Active eDNA sampling was considerably better at detecting <i>G. brasiliensis</i> than the other methods, making it the most cost-effective method. Fyke nets came in a close second, and passive eDNA was a very distant third. Our results directly inform management in the study river and broadly highlight the cost-effectiveness of active eDNA as a freshwater biosecurity tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental DNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.70010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Monitoring alien species is critical to their management. However, early detection of invading alien freshwater fish can be challenging due to the difficulty of observing fish in low abundance. Environmental DNA (eDNA) has emerged as a new and potentially more sensitive method for sampling invasive species as compared to conventional methods, but the comparative financial cost is not often assessed. Adoption of eDNA by managers requires studies that showcase its cost-effectiveness relative to conventional approaches. Here we use eDNA to assist in the management of an aggressive alien fish, the pearl cichlid (Geophagus brasiliensis), that is invading an urban river in south-western Australia. We applied an occupancy model to survey data collected 6 years apart (2015, 2021) to assess how the species' distribution had changed and to evaluate whether an instream barrier had the potential to limit upstream invasion. To understand the effectiveness of eDNA, we used our model to quantify the relative efficiency (capture probability) of two eDNA sampling methods (active eDNA and passive eDNA) and fyke netting, as well as the number of replicate samples required per site to deliver >95% detection. We coupled the number of replicates needed with the cost per replicate to determine the cost-efficiency of each method. We found that G. brasiliensis abundance was higher in downstream reaches in both survey years, and there was no evidence that its distribution had changed through time. However, G. brasiliensis was present above the instream barrier. Active eDNA sampling was considerably better at detecting G. brasiliensis than the other methods, making it the most cost-effective method. Fyke nets came in a close second, and passive eDNA was a very distant third. Our results directly inform management in the study river and broadly highlight the cost-effectiveness of active eDNA as a freshwater biosecurity tool.

Abstract Image

在监测外来淡水鱼入侵时,主动式 eDNA 比鱼叉网或被动式 eDNA 采集更具成本效益
监测外来物种对其管理至关重要。然而,由于很难观察到数量较少的鱼类,因此早期发现入侵的外来淡水鱼可能具有挑战性。与传统方法相比,环境 DNA(eDNA)已成为一种新的且可能更灵敏的入侵物种采样方法,但其比较经济成本往往没有得到评估。管理人员采用 eDNA 需要进行研究,以展示其相对于传统方法的成本效益。在这里,我们利用 eDNA 来协助管理入侵澳大利亚西南部城市河流的外来侵略性鱼类--珍珠慈鲷(Geophagus brasiliensis)。我们将占位模型应用于相隔6年(2015年、2021年)收集的调查数据,以评估该物种的分布发生了怎样的变化,并评估内流屏障是否有可能限制上游入侵。为了了解 eDNA 的有效性,我们使用模型量化了两种 eDNA 采样方法(主动 eDNA 和被动 eDNA)和耙网的相对效率(捕获概率),以及每个地点要达到 95% 的检测率所需的重复样本数量。我们将所需的重复样本数量与每个重复样本的成本结合起来,以确定每种方法的成本效益。我们发现,在两个调查年份中,下游河段的巴西鹅掌楸丰度都较高,而且没有证据表明其分布随时间发生了变化。不过,G. brasiliensis 存在于内流障碍物上方。主动 eDNA 取样在检测 G. brasiliensis 方面比其他方法要好得多,因此是最具成本效益的方法。鱼叉网紧随其后,被动式 eDNA 排在第三位。我们的研究结果直接指导了研究河流的管理,并广泛强调了主动 eDNA 作为淡水生物安全工具的成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental DNA
Environmental DNA Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信