Invasive Species Monitoring Is Improved by Combining eDNA qPCR and Traditional Microscopy Methods

IF 1.9 Q3 FISHERIES
Zoe Dahlquist, Dulaney L. Miller, Stephen J. Amish, Leif Howard, Michael McCartney, Gordon Luikart
{"title":"Invasive Species Monitoring Is Improved by Combining eDNA qPCR and Traditional Microscopy Methods","authors":"Zoe Dahlquist,&nbsp;Dulaney L. Miller,&nbsp;Stephen J. Amish,&nbsp;Leif Howard,&nbsp;Michael McCartney,&nbsp;Gordon Luikart","doi":"10.1002/aff2.70075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species, such as non-native molluscs, plants, and fish, hinges on early detection to help managers avoid establishment. Here, we evaluated two detection methods for a prolific invader: dreissenid mussels. We compared environmental DNA (eDNA) testing to cross-polarized light microscopy detection (CPLM) of dreissenid larvae (veligers). Microscopy is widely used for dreissenid detection, whereas eDNA testing is not yet common. We analysed 85 samples collected from July 2014 to September 2015 from two water bodies in Minnesota with known infestations of zebra mussels (<i>Dreissena polymorpha</i>), and one water body (Duluth/Superior Harbour in Lake Superior) that is infested with both zebra and quagga mussels (<i>Dreissena rostriformis</i>). Using a probe-based quantitative PCR eDNA assay, we detected <i>Dreissena</i> eDNA in 34 of the 62 veliger-negative samples and 11 of the veliger-positive samples, whereas eDNA was not detected in 12 of the veliger positive samples. Our results suggest managers and researchers could improve early detection sensitivity by using eDNA testing of plankton tow-net sampling to complement microscopy detection of invasive bivalves. eDNA technologies, including large-volume tow-net sampling (with or without veligers present in the waterbody), can help prevent false negative detection outcomes and improve early detection of invasive mussel species.</p>","PeriodicalId":100114,"journal":{"name":"Aquaculture, Fish and Fisheries","volume":"5 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aff2.70075","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aquaculture, Fish and Fisheries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aff2.70075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FISHERIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species, such as non-native molluscs, plants, and fish, hinges on early detection to help managers avoid establishment. Here, we evaluated two detection methods for a prolific invader: dreissenid mussels. We compared environmental DNA (eDNA) testing to cross-polarized light microscopy detection (CPLM) of dreissenid larvae (veligers). Microscopy is widely used for dreissenid detection, whereas eDNA testing is not yet common. We analysed 85 samples collected from July 2014 to September 2015 from two water bodies in Minnesota with known infestations of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), and one water body (Duluth/Superior Harbour in Lake Superior) that is infested with both zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena rostriformis). Using a probe-based quantitative PCR eDNA assay, we detected Dreissena eDNA in 34 of the 62 veliger-negative samples and 11 of the veliger-positive samples, whereas eDNA was not detected in 12 of the veliger positive samples. Our results suggest managers and researchers could improve early detection sensitivity by using eDNA testing of plankton tow-net sampling to complement microscopy detection of invasive bivalves. eDNA technologies, including large-volume tow-net sampling (with or without veligers present in the waterbody), can help prevent false negative detection outcomes and improve early detection of invasive mussel species.

Abstract Image

eDNA qPCR与传统显微技术相结合,改进了入侵物种监测方法
防止水生入侵物种的传播,如非本地软体动物、植物和鱼类,取决于早期发现,以帮助管理人员避免建立。在这里,我们评估了两种检测方法多产的入侵者:德雷森贻贝。我们比较了环境DNA (eDNA)检测和交叉偏振光显微镜检测(CPLM)对德雷蝇幼虫(veligers)的影响。显微镜被广泛用于德雷senid检测,而eDNA检测尚不常见。我们分析了2014年7月至2015年9月从明尼苏达州两个已知斑马贻贝(Dreissena polymorpha)侵染的水体和一个同时侵染斑马和斑驴贻贝(Dreissena rostriformis)的水体(苏必利尔湖的德卢斯/苏必利尔港)收集的85份样本。利用探针定量PCR检测eDNA,我们在62例veliger阴性样本中的34例和11例veliger阳性样本中检测到Dreissena eDNA,而在12例veliger阳性样本中未检测到eDNA。我们的研究结果表明,管理人员和研究人员可以通过浮游生物拖网取样的eDNA检测来补充入侵双壳类的显微镜检测,从而提高早期检测的灵敏度。eDNA技术,包括大容量拖网取样(水体中存在或不存在veligers),可以帮助防止假阴性检测结果,并提高对入侵贻贝物种的早期检测。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信