Applications of environmental DNA (eDNA) in ecology and conservation: opportunities, challenges and prospects

Conserving biodiversity in the face of ever-increasing human pressure is hampered by our lack of basic information on species occurrence, distribution, abundance, habitat requirements, and threats. Obtaining this information requires efficient and sensitive methods capable of detecting and quantifying true occurrence and diversity, including rare, cryptic and elusive species. Environmental DNA (eDNA) is an emerging technique that can increase our ability to detect and quantify biodiversity, by overcoming some of the challenges of labor-intensive traditional surveys. The application of eDNA in ecology and conservation has grown enormously in recent years, but without a concurrent growth in appreciation of its strengths and limitations. In many situations, eDNA may either not work, or it may work but not provide the information needed. Problems with (1) imperfect detection, (2) abundance quantification, (3) taxonomic assignment, (4) eDNA spatial and temporal dynamics, (5) data analysis and interpretation, and (6) assessing ecological status have all been significant. The technique has often been used without a careful evaluation of the technical challenges and complexities involved, and a determination made that eDNA is the appropriate method for the species or environment of interest. It is therefore important to evaluate the scope and relevance of eDNA-based studies, and to identify critical considerations that need to be taken into account before using the approach. We review and synthesize eDNA studies published to date to highlight the opportunities and limitations of utilizing eDNA in ecology and conservation. We identify potential ways of reducing limitations in eDNA analysis, and demonstrate how eDNA and traditional surveys can complement each other.

[1]  Xin Zhou,et al.  Filling reference gaps via assembling DNA barcodes using high-throughput sequencing—moving toward barcoding the world , 2017, GigaScience.

[2]  J. Sarrazin,et al.  Exploring Environmental DNA (eDNA) to Assess Biodiversity of Hard Substratum Faunal Communities on the Lucky Strike Vent Field (Mid-Atlantic Ridge) and Investigate Recolonization Dynamics After an Induced Disturbance , 2020, Frontiers in Marine Science.

[3]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Measuring protected-area outcomes with leech iDNA: large-scale quantification of vertebrate biodiversity in Ailaoshan reserve , 2020, bioRxiv.

[4]  Pierre Taberlet,et al.  Improved detection of an alien invasive species through environmental DNA barcoding: the example of the American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus , 2012 .

[5]  Wayne G Landis,et al.  Using Bayesian networks to predict risk to estuary water quality and patterns of benthic environmental DNA in Queensland , 2018, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[6]  J. B. Schmidt,et al.  Arthropod Diversity in a Tropical Forest , 2012, Science.

[7]  R. Watson,et al.  Purification and characterization of a common soil component which inhibits the polymerase chain reaction. , 2000, Canadian journal of microbiology.

[8]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  SPIKEPIPE: A metagenomic pipeline for the accurate quantification of eukaryotic species occurrences and abundances using DNA barcodes or mitogenomes , 2019, bioRxiv.

[9]  Qing Yang,et al.  Ultra-deep sequencing enables high-fidelity recovery of biodiversity for bulk arthropod samples without PCR amplification , 2013, GigaScience.

[10]  E. E. Sigsgaard,et al.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding of wild flowers reveals diverse communities of terrestrial arthropods , 2019, Ecology and evolution.

[11]  Jianfu Zhao,et al.  Using environmental DNA to assess population‐wide spatiotemporal reserve use , 2017, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[12]  A. Ardura Species-specific markers for early detection of marine invertebrate invaders through eDNA methods: Gaps and priorities in GenBank as database example , 2019, Journal for Nature Conservation.

[13]  Jonathan P. Rose,et al.  Traditional trapping methods outperform eDNA sampling for introduced semi-aquatic snakes , 2019, PloS one.

[14]  H. Doi,et al.  Detection of freshwater mussels (Sinanodonta spp.) in artificial ponds through environmental DNA: a comparison with traditional hand collection methods , 2019, Limnology.

[15]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples , 2008, Biology Letters.

[16]  F. Rimet,et al.  Diatom metabarcoding applied to large scale monitoring networks: Optimization of bioinformatics strategies using Mothur software , 2020 .

[17]  Vanessa A. Mata,et al.  How much is enough? Effects of technical and biological replication on metabarcoding dietary analysis , 2018, Molecular ecology.

[18]  B. Nielsen,et al.  Chloroplast DNA Copy Number Changes during Plant Development in Organelle DNA Polymerase Mutants , 2016, Front. Plant Sci..

[19]  S. Mariani,et al.  Space-time dynamics in monitoring neotropical fish communities using eDNA metabarcoding , 2020, bioRxiv.

[20]  K. Stewart Understanding the effects of biotic and abiotic factors on sources of aquatic environmental DNA , 2019, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[21]  T. Lindahl Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA , 1993, Nature.

[22]  Lauren M. Sassoubre,et al.  Quantification of Environmental DNA (eDNA) Shedding and Decay Rates for Three Marine Fish. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  Brent C. Knights,et al.  Development of a quantitative PCR method for screening ichthyoplankton samples for bigheaded carps , 2018, Biological Invasions.

[24]  E. Lara,et al.  Environmental filtering and phylogenetic clustering correlate with the distribution patterns of cryptic protist species. , 2018, Ecology.

[25]  G. Singer,et al.  Comprehensive biodiversity analysis via ultra-deep patterned flow cell technology: a case study of eDNA metabarcoding seawater , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[26]  Kelly D. Goodwin,et al.  In situ Autonomous Acquisition and Preservation of Marine Environmental DNA Using an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle , 2019, Front. Mar. Sci..

[27]  Yiyuan Li,et al.  Fish community assessment with eDNA metabarcoding: effects of sampling design and bioinformatic filtering , 2017 .

[28]  Peter Rådström,et al.  Strategies to Generate PCR-Compatible Samples , 2004 .

[29]  C. Goldberg,et al.  eDNA Sampler: A fully integrated environmental DNA sampling system , 2018 .

[30]  C. Wilson,et al.  Recognizing false positives: synthetic oligonucleotide controls for environmental DNA surveillance , 2016 .

[31]  M. Galan,et al.  Next-Generation Sequencing for Rodent Barcoding: Species Identification from Fresh, Degraded and Environmental Samples , 2012, PloS one.

[32]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Large-scale Quantification of Vertebrate Biodiversity in Ailaoshan Nature Reserve from Leech iDNA , 2020 .

[33]  R. Dorazio,et al.  Environmental DNA sampling reveals high occupancy rates of invasive Burmese pythons at wading bird breeding aggregations in the central Everglades , 2019, PloS one.

[34]  Robert S. Arkle,et al.  Estimating occupancy and abundance of stream amphibians using environmental DNA from filtered water samples , 2013 .

[35]  T. Nguyen,et al.  Monitoring a loss: Detection of the semi‐aquatic crocodile lizard ( Shinisaurus crocodilurus ) in inaccessible habitats via environmental DNA , 2019, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.

[36]  C. Helbing,et al.  Expansion of the known distribution of the coastal tailed frog, Ascaphus truei, in British Columbia, Canada, using robust eDNA detection methods , 2019, PloS one.

[37]  T. Minamoto,et al.  A basin‐scale application of environmental DNA assessment for rare endemic species and closely related exotic species in rivers: a case study of giant salamanders in Japan , 2015 .

[38]  J. Vörös,et al.  Surveying Europe’s Only Cave-Dwelling Chordate Species (Proteus anguinus) Using Environmental DNA , 2017, PloS one.

[39]  Karen E. Chambers,et al.  Quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis of DNA from noninvasive samples for accurate microsatellite genotyping of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) , 2001, Molecular ecology.

[40]  M. A. Senar,et al.  The choice of universal primers and the characteristics of the species mixture determine when DNA metabarcoding can be quantitative , 2018, Molecular ecology.

[41]  D. Lodge,et al.  Estimating species richness using environmental DNA , 2016, Ecology and evolution.

[42]  K. Balasingham,et al.  Residual eDNA detection sensitivity assessed by quantitative real‐time PCR in a river ecosystem , 2017, Molecular ecology resources.

[43]  Miki Baba,et al.  A simple method for preserving environmental DNA in water samples at ambient temperature by addition of cationic surfactant , 2017, Limnology.

[44]  C. K. Dodd,et al.  Tracking Global Population Trends: Population Time-Series Data and a Living Planet Index for Reptiles , 2018, Journal of Herpetology.

[45]  Paul Nichols,et al.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding of lake fish communities reflects long‐term data from established survey methods , 2016, Molecular ecology.

[46]  P. Anastácio,et al.  Detection and Control of Invasive Freshwater Crayfish: From Traditional to Innovative Methods , 2019, Diversity.

[47]  Elizabeth A. Casman,et al.  Making sense of the noise: The effect of hydrology on silver carp eDNA detection in the Chicago area waterway system. , 2017, The Science of the total environment.

[48]  Z. Buřivalová,et al.  The sound of a tropical forest , 2019, Science.

[49]  Vanessa A. Mata,et al.  Female dietary bias towards large migratory moths in the European free-tailed bat (Tadarida teniotis) , 2016, Biology Letters.

[50]  D. Lodge,et al.  The room temperature preservation of filtered environmental DNA samples and assimilation into a phenol–chloroform–isoamyl alcohol DNA extraction , 2014, Molecular ecology resources.

[51]  V. Chanudet,et al.  Direct fishing and eDNA metabarcoding for biomonitoring during a 3-year survey significantly improves number of fish detected around a South East Asian reservoir , 2018, PloS one.

[52]  O. Diserud,et al.  Environmental DNA filtration techniques affect recovered biodiversity , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[53]  H. Madsen,et al.  Environmental DNA for improved detection and environmental surveillance of schistosomiasis , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[54]  T. Rognes,et al.  Swarm v2: highly-scalable and high-resolution amplicon clustering , 2015, PeerJ.

[55]  S. Rogers,et al.  Predicting the fate of eDNA in the environment and implications for studying biodiversity , 2019, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[56]  M. Kondoh,et al.  The Release Rate of Environmental DNA from Juvenile and Adult Fish , 2014, PloS one.

[57]  M. Renshaw,et al.  Environmental DNA (eDNA) Detection Probability Is Influenced by Seasonal Activity of Organisms , 2016, PloS one.

[58]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Environmental DNA , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[59]  W. L. Chadderton,et al.  Validation of eDNA Surveillance Sensitivity for Detection of Asian Carps in Controlled and Field Experiments , 2013, PloS one.

[60]  C. Turner,et al.  Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water , 2015 .

[61]  T. Kono,et al.  Using environmental DNA analyses to assess the occurrence and abundance of the endangered amphidromous fish Plecoglossus altivelis ryukyuensis , 2020, Biodiversity data journal.

[62]  E. Petit,et al.  The downside of eDNA as a survey tool in water bodies , 2015 .

[63]  Gregory D. Williams,et al.  Spatial distribution of environmental DNA in a nearshore marine habitat , 2017, PeerJ.

[64]  M. Vences,et al.  Detection of elusive fire salamander larvae (Salamandra salamandra) in streams via environmental DNA , 2019, Amphibia-Reptilia.

[65]  C. Wilson,et al.  Stimulation and suppression of PCR-mediated recombination. , 1998, Nucleic acids research.

[66]  W. L. Chadderton,et al.  Detection of Asian carp DNA as part of a Great Lakes basin-wide surveillance program , 2013 .

[67]  C. Schrader,et al.  PCR inhibitors – occurrence, properties and removal , 2012, Journal of applied microbiology.

[68]  J. P. Collins,et al.  Site occupancy models in the analysis of environmental DNA presence/absence surveys: a case study of an emerging amphibian pathogen , 2013 .

[69]  J. Walsh,et al.  Using eDNA, sediment subfossils, and zooplankton nets to detect invasive spiny water flea (Bythotrephes longimanus) , 2018, Biological Invasions.

[70]  T. Cordier,et al.  Multi-marker eDNA metabarcoding survey to assess the environmental impact of three offshore gas platforms in the North Adriatic Sea (Italy). , 2019, Marine environmental research.

[71]  Z. Kawabata,et al.  Surveillance of fish species composition using environmental DNA , 2012, Limnology.

[72]  Adam J. Sepulveda,et al.  Environmental DNA as a new method for early detection of New Zealand mudsnails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) , 2013, Freshwater Science.

[73]  D. A. Fernández,et al.  The expansion of exotic Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the extreme south of Patagonia: an environmental DNA approach , 2019, Biological Invasions.

[74]  A. Maruyama,et al.  Environmental DNA analysis as a non‐invasive quantitative tool for reproductive migration of a threatened endemic fish in rivers , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[75]  B. Deagle,et al.  Analysis of Australian fur seal diet by pyrosequencing prey DNA in faeces , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[76]  Jim Foster,et al.  Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) , 2015 .

[77]  S. Henkel,et al.  Assessing differences in macrofaunal assemblages as a factor of sieve mesh size, distance between samples, and time of sampling , 2017, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.

[78]  Anthony M. Zador,et al.  Sources of PCR-induced distortions in high-throughput sequencing data sets , 2014, bioRxiv.

[79]  Frédéric Mahé,et al.  Swarm: robust and fast clustering method for amplicon-based studies , 2014, PeerJ.

[80]  J. T. Dunnen,et al.  Efficient and sensitive identification and quantification of airborne pollen using next‐generation DNA sequencing , 2015, Molecular ecology resources.

[81]  Meixi Lin,et al.  Effective detection of environmental DNA from the invasive American bullfrog , 2019, Biological Invasions.

[82]  Adam J. Sepulveda,et al.  Understanding environmental DNA detection probabilities: A case study using a stream-dwelling char Salvelinus fontinalis , 2015 .

[83]  T. Bruns,et al.  Quantifying microbial communities with 454 pyrosequencing: does read abundance count? , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[84]  Michael J. Miller,et al.  Release of eDNA by different life history stages and during spawning activities of laboratory-reared Japanese eels for interpretation of oceanic survey data , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[85]  Gareth Jones,et al.  Taxon‐specific PCR for DNA barcoding arthropod prey in bat faeces , 2011, Molecular ecology resources.

[86]  Charles K. Lee,et al.  Evidence of plant and animal communities at exposed and subglacial (cave) geothermal sites in Antarctica , 2018, Polar Biology.

[87]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Spatial Representativeness of Environmental DNA Metabarcoding Signal for Fish Biodiversity Assessment in a Natural Freshwater System , 2016, PloS one.

[88]  C. Goldberg,et al.  A self‐preserving, partially biodegradable eDNA filter , 2019, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[89]  K. Halanych,et al.  Meiofaunal community analysis by high-throughput sequencing: comparison of extraction, quality filtering, and clustering methods. , 2015, Marine genomics.

[90]  Lynsey R. Harper,et al.  Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[91]  David A. Strand,et al.  Detection of an invasive aquatic plant in natural water bodies using environmental DNA , 2019, PloS one.

[92]  H. Spencer,et al.  Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding reveals strong discrimination among diverse marine habitats connected by water movement , 2019, Molecular ecology resources.

[93]  F. Altermatt,et al.  Transport Distance of Invertebrate Environmental DNA in a Natural River , 2014, PloS one.

[94]  Thierry Grange,et al.  An Efficient Multistrategy DNA Decontamination Procedure of PCR Reagents for Hypersensitive PCR Applications , 2010, PloS one.

[95]  M. Kelly-Quinn,et al.  Identifying spawning sites and other critical habitat in lotic systems using eDNA “snapshots”: A case study using the sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus L. , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[96]  P. Anders,et al.  Utilizing environmental DNA for fish eradication effectiveness monitoring in streams , 2019, Biological Invasions.

[97]  A M Prince,et al.  PCR: how to kill unwanted DNA. , 1992, BioTechniques.

[98]  R. Swihart,et al.  The importance of including imperfect detection models in eDNA experimental design , 2016, Molecular ecology resources.

[99]  Eske Willerslev,et al.  Environmental DNA - An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity , 2015 .

[100]  B. Baldigo,et al.  Efficacy of Environmental DNA to Detect and Quantify Brook Trout Populations in Headwater Streams of the Adirondack Mountains, New York , 2017 .

[101]  Environmental DNA (eDNA) detects the pool frog (Pelophylax lessonae) at times when traditional monitoring methods are insensitive , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[102]  H. Timmers,et al.  Regulation of anti-sense transcription by Mot1p and NC2 via removal of TATA-binding protein (TBP) from the 3′-end of genes , 2014, Nucleic acids research.

[103]  François Fabianek,et al.  The diet of Myotis lucifugus across Canada: assessing foraging quality and diet variability , 2014, Molecular ecology.

[104]  D. Chapman,et al.  Quantification of eDNA shedding rates from invasive bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis and silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix. , 2015 .

[105]  Christopher A. Taylor,et al.  Environmental DNA detects a rare large river crayfish but with little relation to local abundance , 2018 .

[106]  T. Caro,et al.  Sensitivity of Africa’s larger mammals to humans , 2018, Journal for Nature Conservation.

[107]  Jesse A. Port,et al.  Indexed PCR Primers Induce Template-Specific Bias in Large-Scale DNA Sequencing Studies , 2016, PloS one.

[108]  F. Nakajima,et al.  Effects of treated sample weight and DNA marker length on sediment eDNA based detection of a benthic invertebrate , 2018, Ecological Indicators.

[109]  E. Nielsen,et al.  Species-specific detection and quantification of environmental DNA from marine fishes in the Baltic Sea , 2019, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology.

[110]  G. McCracken,et al.  Disparities in second‐generation DNA metabarcoding results exposed with accessible and repeatable workflows , 2018, Molecular ecology resources.

[111]  Douglas W. Yu,et al.  Environmental DNA for the enumeration and management of Pacific salmon , 2018, bioRxiv.

[112]  Erin K. Grey,et al.  eDNA metabarcoding as a new surveillance approach for coastal Arctic biodiversity , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[113]  N. Isaac,et al.  Complex long-term biodiversity change among invertebrates, bryophytes and lichens , 2020, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[114]  Michael J. Miller,et al.  Oceanic spawning ecology of freshwater eels in the western North Pacific , 2011, Nature communications.

[115]  H. Possingham,et al.  Prioritization of Marine Turtle Management Projects: A Protocol that Accounts for Threats to Different Life History Stages , 2017 .

[116]  O. Evrard,et al.  Environmental DNA provides information on sediment sources: A study in catchments affected by Fukushima radioactive fallout. , 2019, The Science of the total environment.

[117]  Kristy Deiner,et al.  Special Issue Article: Environmental DNA Choice of capture and extraction methods affect detection of freshwater biodiversity from environmental DNA , 2015 .

[118]  B. Letcher,et al.  Distance, flow and PCR inhibition: eDNA dynamics in two headwater streams , 2015, Molecular ecology resources.

[119]  A. Coulter,et al.  Detecting the movement and spawning activity of bigheaded carps with environmental DNA , 2016, Molecular ecology resources.

[120]  G. Lamberti,et al.  Comparative Cost and Effort of Fish Distribution Detection via Environmental DNA Analysis and Electrofishing , 2017 .

[121]  A. Piaggio,et al.  No filters, no fridges: a method for preservation of water samples for eDNA analysis , 2016, BMC Research Notes.

[122]  G. Inglis,et al.  Considerations for incorporating real-time PCR assays into routine marine biosecurity surveillance programmes: a case study targeting the Mediterranean fanworm (Sabella spallanzanii) and club tunicate (Styela clava) 1. , 2019, Genome.

[123]  K. Tsukamoto,et al.  First use of oceanic environmental DNA to study the spawning ecology of the Japanese eel Anguilla japonica , 2019, Marine Ecology Progress Series.

[124]  J. Trevors,et al.  Cycling of extracellular DNA in the soil environment , 2007 .

[125]  W. L. Chadderton,et al.  Environmental conditions influence eDNA persistence in aquatic systems. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[126]  A. Piaggio,et al.  Detecting an elusive invasive species: a diagnostic PCR to detect Burmese python in Florida waters and an assessment of persistence of environmental DNA , 2014, Molecular ecology resources.

[127]  L. Bernatchez,et al.  Estimating fish abundance and biomass from eDNA concentrations: variability among capture methods and environmental conditions , 2016, Molecular ecology resources.

[128]  Paul D. Jones,et al.  Determining Presence of Rare Amphibian Species: Testing and Combining Novel Survey Methods , 2019, Journal of Herpetology.

[129]  Lauren M. Sassoubre,et al.  Environmental DNA (eDNA) Shedding and Decay Rates to Model Freshwater Mussel eDNA Transport in a River. , 2017, Environmental science & technology.

[130]  B. Kemp,et al.  Use of bleach to eliminate contaminating DNA from the surface of bones and teeth. , 2005, Forensic science international.

[131]  D. Lodge,et al.  Particle size distribution and optimal capture of aqueous macrobial eDNA , 2014, bioRxiv.

[132]  Panu Somervuo,et al.  Animal Sound Identifier (ASI): software for automated identification of vocal animals. , 2018, Ecology letters.

[133]  Rangewide tidewater goby occupancy survey using environmental DNA , 2019, Conservation Genetics.

[134]  Z. Kawabata,et al.  Estimation of Fish Biomass Using Environmental DNA , 2012, PloS one.

[135]  Aldenor G. Santos,et al.  Occurrence of the potent mutagens 2- nitrobenzanthrone and 3-nitrobenzanthrone in fine airborne particles , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[136]  José J Lahoz-Monfort,et al.  Statistical approaches to account for false‐positive errors in environmental DNA samples , 2016, Molecular ecology resources.

[137]  M. Stoeckle,et al.  Aquatic environmental DNA detects seasonal fish abundance and habitat preference in an urban estuary , 2017, PloS one.

[138]  Emanuel A. Fronhofer,et al.  Environmental DNA reveals that rivers are conveyer belts of biodiversity information , 2016, Nature Communications.

[139]  Pierre Taberlet,et al.  How to limit false positives in environmental DNA and metabarcoding? , 2016, Molecular ecology resources.

[140]  J. Maldonado,et al.  Concurrent visual encounter sampling validates eDNA selectivity and sensitivity for the endangered wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) , 2019, PloS one.

[141]  Dawn B. Goldsmith,et al.  Evaluation of Filtration and DNA Extraction Methods for Environmental DNA Biodiversity Assessments across Multiple Trophic Levels , 2017, Front. Mar. Sci..

[142]  A. Clarke,et al.  Why does metabolism scale with temperature , 2004 .

[143]  J. Amberg,et al.  Environmental DNA as a tool to help inform zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, management in inland lakes , 2019, Management of Biological Invasions.

[144]  V. Fonseca “Pitfalls in relative abundance estimation using eDNA metabarcoding” , 2018, Molecular Ecology Resources.

[145]  D. Sims,et al.  Persistence of environmental DNA in marine systems , 2018, Communications Biology.

[146]  P. Välimäki,et al.  From feces to data: A metabarcoding method for analyzing consumed and available prey in a bird‐insect food web , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[147]  D. Serre,et al.  In silico assessment of primers for eDNA studies using PrimerTree and application to characterize the biodiversity surrounding the Cuyahoga River , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[148]  D. Sims,et al.  Non‐specific amplification compromises environmental DNA metabarcoding with COI , 2019, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[149]  Antton Alberdi,et al.  Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples , 2018 .

[150]  Kristian Meissner,et al.  Implementation options for DNA-based identification into ecological status assessment under the European Water Framework Directive. , 2018, Water research.

[151]  M. Miya,et al.  Evaluation of detection probabilities at the water-filtering and initial PCR steps in environmental DNA metabarcoding using a multispecies site occupancy model , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[152]  Eske Willerslev,et al.  Detection of a Diverse Marine Fish Fauna Using Environmental DNA from Seawater Samples , 2012, PloS one.

[153]  François Pompanon,et al.  Persistence of Environmental DNA in Freshwater Ecosystems , 2011, PloS one.

[154]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Who is eating what: diet assessment using next generation sequencing , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[155]  G. Ficetola,et al.  Conditionally autoregressive models improve occupancy analyses of autocorrelated data: An example with environmental DNA , 2018, Molecular ecology resources.

[156]  Correction: The Release Rate of Environmental DNA from Juvenile and Adult Fish , 2015, PLoS ONE.

[157]  Jianfu Zhao,et al.  Characterization, optimization, and validation of environmental DNA (eDNA) markers to detect an endangered aquatic mammal , 2016, Conservation Genetics Resources.

[158]  A. Piaggio,et al.  Molecular forensics in avian conservation: a DNA-based approach for identifying mammalian predators of ground-nesting birds and eggs , 2016, BMC Research Notes.

[159]  C. Gratton,et al.  An improved method for utilizing high‐throughput amplicon sequencing to determine the diets of insectivorous animals , 2019, Molecular ecology resources.

[160]  C. Greene,et al.  Environmental DNA provides quantitative estimates of a threatened salmon species , 2019, Biological Conservation.

[161]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Environmental DNA and metabarcoding for the study of amphibians and reptiles: species distribution, the microbiome, and much more , 2019, Amphibia-Reptilia.

[162]  J. Secondi,et al.  Assessing the effect of landscape features on pond colonisation by an elusive amphibian invader using environmental DNA , 2020 .

[163]  Satsuki Tsuji,et al.  Environmental DNA reveals nonmigratory individuals of Palaemon paucidens overwintering in Lake Biwa shallow waters , 2018, Freshwater Science.

[164]  R. Meier,et al.  Next-generation freshwater bioassessment: eDNA metabarcoding with a conserved metazoan primer reveals species-rich and reservoir-specific communities , 2016, Royal Society Open Science.

[165]  H. Hollert,et al.  Assessing the fate of brown trout (Salmo trutta) environmental DNA in a natural stream using a sensitive and specific dual-labelled probe. , 2019, The Science of the total environment.

[166]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Metabarcoding of modern soil DNA gives a highly local vegetation signal in Svalbard tundra , 2018, The Holocene.

[167]  Robert S. Arkle,et al.  Molecular Detection of Vertebrates in Stream Water: A Demonstration Using Rocky Mountain Tailed Frogs and Idaho Giant Salamanders , 2011, PloS one.

[168]  C. Goldberg,et al.  Characterizing the distribution of an endangered salmonid using environmental DNA analysis , 2015 .

[169]  H. Doi,et al.  Nuclear internal transcribed spacer‐1 as a sensitive genetic marker for environmental DNA studies in common carp Cyprinus carpio , 2017, Molecular ecology resources.

[170]  Louis A. Tremblay,et al.  Metabarcoding monitoring analysis: the pros and cons of using co-extracted environmental DNA and RNA data to assess offshore oil production impacts on benthic communities , 2017, PeerJ.

[171]  C. Goldberg,et al.  Quantifying effects of UV-B, temperature, and pH on eDNA degradation in aquatic microcosms , 2015 .

[172]  Xiaowei Zhang,et al.  eDNA metabarcoding in zooplankton improves the ecological status assessment of aquatic ecosystems. , 2019, Environment international.

[173]  Chanjuan Qu,et al.  Evaluating monitoring options for conservation: comparing traditional and environmental DNA tools for a critically endangered mammal , 2019, The Science of Nature.

[174]  D. Gleeson,et al.  Environmental DNA monitoring and management of invasive fish: comparison of eDNA and fyke netting , 2017 .

[175]  Jeffrey A. Falke,et al.  A Rapid‐Assessment Method to Estimate the Distribution of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Tributary Habitats Using eDNA and Occupancy Estimation , 2018 .

[176]  Jindong Zhao,et al.  Assessment of fish communities using environmental DNA: Effect of spatial sampling design in lentic systems of different sizes , 2020, Molecular ecology resources.

[177]  K. Athira,et al.  Rapid assessment of biodiversity using acoustic indices , 2018, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[178]  Reid Tingley,et al.  Optimal survey designs for environmental DNA sampling , 2017 .

[179]  James Roberts,et al.  Utility of eDNA and occupancy models for monitoring an endangered fish across diverse riverine habitats , 2018, Hydrobiologia.

[180]  Shaun P. Wilkinson,et al.  Development of a multi-assay approach for monitoring coral diversity using eDNA metabarcoding , 2019, Coral Reefs.

[181]  Z. Olson,et al.  An eDNA approach to detect eastern hellbenders (Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis) using samples of water , 2012, Wildlife Research.

[182]  M. Seymour Rapid progression and future of environmental DNA research , 2019, Communications Biology.

[183]  R. Corlett A Bigger Toolbox: Biotechnology in Biodiversity Conservation. , 2017, Trends in biotechnology.

[184]  U. Srinivasan Morphological and Behavioral Correlates of Long-Term Bird Survival in Selectively Logged Forest , 2019, Front. Ecol. Evol..

[185]  Mark A. Davis,et al.  Radiotelemetry reveals effects of upstream biomass and UV exposure on environmental DNA occupancy and detection for a large freshwater turtle , 2019, Environmental DNA.

[186]  C. Hardy,et al.  Does Size Matter? An Experimental Evaluation of the Relative Abundance and Decay Rates of Aquatic Environmental DNA. , 2018, Environmental science & technology.

[187]  Katherine Hubbard,et al.  Assessing eukaryotic biodiversity in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary through environmental DNA metabarcoding , 2019, Ecology and evolution.

[188]  Hirotoshi Sato,et al.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding for fish community analysis in backwater lakes: A comparison of capture methods , 2019, PloS one.

[189]  Thomas W. A. Braukmann,et al.  Finding the pond through the weeds: eDNA reveals underestimated diversity of pondweeds , 2018, Applications in plant sciences.

[190]  J. Gómez‐Zurita,et al.  High-throughput biodiversity analysis: Rapid assessment of species richness and ecological interactions of Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera) in the tropics , 2016, ZooKeys.

[191]  H. Itakura,et al.  Environmental DNA analysis reveals the spatial distribution, abundance, and biomass of Japanese eels at the river‐basin scale , 2019, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.

[192]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Next‐generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding , 2016, Molecular ecology.

[193]  A. Keeley,et al.  Filtration recovery of extracellular DNA from environmental water samples. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[194]  Lauren M. Sassoubre,et al.  Biomonitoring of marine vertebrates in Monterey Bay using eDNA metabarcoding , 2017, PloS one.

[195]  R. Khelifa Sensitivity of biodiversity indices to life history stage, habitat type and landscape in Odonata community , 2019, Biological Conservation.

[196]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Replication levels, false presences and the estimation of the presence/absence from eDNA metabarcoding data , 2015, Molecular ecology resources.

[197]  B. Deagle,et al.  Quantification of damage in DNA recovered from highly degraded samples – a case study on DNA in faeces , 2006, Frontiers in Zoology.

[198]  M. Kondoh,et al.  Dispersion and degradation of environmental DNA from caged fish in a marine environment , 2019, Fisheries Science.

[199]  V. I. Gusarov,et al.  New environmental metabarcodes for analysing soil DNA: potential for studying past and present ecosystems , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[200]  Carol A. Stepien,et al.  Invasion genetics from eDNA and thousands of larvae: A targeted metabarcoding assay that distinguishes species and population variation of zebra and quagga mussels , 2019, Ecology and evolution.

[201]  J. Semmens,et al.  Application of environmental DNA to detect an endangered marine skate species in the wild , 2017, PloS one.

[202]  Robert C. Edgar,et al.  UCHIME2: improved chimera prediction for amplicon sequencing , 2016, bioRxiv.

[203]  L. Waits,et al.  Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species , 2016 .

[204]  C. Wiuf,et al.  Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[205]  A. Rinaldo,et al.  Estimating species distribution and abundance in river networks using environmental DNA , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[206]  P. Taberlet,et al.  DNA from soil mirrors plant taxonomic and growth form diversity. , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[207]  S. Prosser,et al.  DNA metabarcoding allows non-invasive identification of arthropod prey provisioned to nestling Rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) , 2019, PeerJ.

[208]  Nancy Knowlton,et al.  Metazoan mitochondrial gene sequence reference datasets for taxonomic assignment of environmental samples , 2017, Scientific Data.

[209]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Unlocking biodiversity and conservation studies in high-diversity environments using environmental DNA (eDNA): A test with Guianese freshwater fishes. , 2018, Molecular ecology resources.

[210]  H. Doi,et al.  Water sampling for environmental DNA surveys by using an unmanned aerial vehicle , 2017 .

[211]  T. Takahara,et al.  Comparison of the detection of 3 endangered frog species by eDNA and acoustic surveys across 3 seasons , 2020, Freshwater Science.

[212]  Yiyuan Li,et al.  Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding , 2015, Molecular ecology resources.

[213]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Body size determines soil community assembly in a tropical forest. , 2018, Molecular ecology.

[214]  Satoshi Yamamoto,et al.  Rapid degradation of longer DNA fragments enables the improved estimation of distribution and biomass using environmental DNA , 2017, Molecular ecology resources.

[215]  L. Waits,et al.  Using environmental DNA methods to improve detectability in a hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) monitoring program , 2015 .

[216]  M. Miya,et al.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding reveals local fish communities in a species-rich coastal sea , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[217]  T. Porter,et al.  Over 2.5 million COI sequences in GenBank and growing , 2018, PloS one.

[218]  Jeremy R. deWaard,et al.  DNA barcodes expose unexpected diversity in Canadian mites , 2019, Molecular ecology.

[219]  J. Geist,et al.  Environmental DNA as a monitoring tool for the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.): a substitute for classical monitoring approaches? , 2016 .

[220]  E. E. Sigsgaard,et al.  Monitoring the near-extinct European weather loach in Denmark based on environmental DNA from water samples , 2015 .

[221]  Yong Zhang,et al.  Drivers of waterbird communities and their declines on Yangtze River floodplain lakes , 2018 .

[222]  H. Kauserud,et al.  ITS all right mama: investigating the formation of chimeric sequences in the ITS2 region by DNA metabarcoding analyses of fungal mock communities of different complexities , 2017, Molecular ecology resources.

[223]  D. Buckley,et al.  Factors governing extracellular DNA degradation dynamics in soil , 2018, Environmental microbiology reports.

[224]  Mehrdad Hajibabaei,et al.  Annual time-series analysis of aqueous eDNA reveals ecologically relevant dynamics of lake ecosystem biodiversity , 2017, Nature Communications.

[225]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Tracking earthworm communities from soil DNA , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[226]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Soil sampling and isolation of extracellular DNA from large amount of starting material suitable for metabarcoding studies , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[227]  B. Emmett,et al.  Acidity promotes degradation of multi-species environmental DNA in lotic mesocosms , 2018, Communications Biology.

[228]  Alana L. Moore,et al.  Assessing the cost‐efficiency of environmental DNA sampling , 2016 .

[229]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  Scaling-up camera traps: monitoring the planet's biodiversity with networks of remote sensors , 2017 .

[230]  R. L. Reimink,et al.  Species-specific qPCR assays allow for high-resolution population assessment of four species avian schistosome that cause swimmer's itch in recreational lakes , 2019, International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife.

[231]  G. Carvalho,et al.  Environmental DNA size sorting and degradation experiment indicates the state of Daphnia magna mitochondrial and nuclear eDNA is subcellular , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[232]  S. Pierce,et al.  Differential biodiversity responses between kingdoms (plants, fungi, bacteria and metazoa) along an Alpine succession gradient , 2018, Molecular ecology.

[233]  Jeffrey E. Hill,et al.  Assessing Environmental DNA Detection in Controlled Lentic Systems , 2014, PloS one.

[234]  Eric Coissac,et al.  Bioinformatic challenges for DNA metabarcoding of plants and animals , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[235]  A. Zhan,et al.  Testing clustering strategies for metabarcoding‐based investigation of community–environment interactions , 2018, Molecular ecology resources.

[236]  S. Mariani,et al.  Biodiversity assessment of tropical shelf eukaryotic communities via pelagic eDNA metabarcoding , 2019, Ecology and evolution.

[237]  R. Yamamoto,et al.  Collective motion of cells crawling on a substrate: roles of cell shape and contact inhibition , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[238]  Masayuki Ushio,et al.  Water temperature-dependent degradation of environmental DNA and its relation to bacterial abundance , 2017, PloS one.

[239]  M. P. Piggott Evaluating the effects of laboratory protocols on eDNA detection probability for an endangered freshwater fish , 2016, Ecology and evolution.

[240]  Kevin Leempoel,et al.  A comparison of eDNA to camera trapping for assessment of terrestrial mammal diversity , 2019, bioRxiv.

[241]  V. Ranwez,et al.  A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents , 2013, Frontiers in Zoology.

[242]  S. Knudsen,et al.  Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter , 2017 .

[243]  Taal Levi,et al.  The primacy of bears as seed dispersers in salmon‐bearing ecosystems , 2018 .

[244]  H. MacIsaac,et al.  Early detection of a highly invasive bivalve based on environmental DNA (eDNA) , 2018, Biological Invasions.

[245]  J. Britton,et al.  Environmental DNA as a non‐invasive sampling tool to detect the spawning distribution of European anadromous shads ( Alosa  spp.) , 2019, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.

[246]  François Pompanon,et al.  DNA metabarcoding and the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I marker: not a perfect match , 2014, Biology Letters.

[247]  K. McKelvey,et al.  Robust Detection of Rare Species Using Environmental DNA: The Importance of Primer Specificity , 2013, PloS one.

[248]  R. Stadhouders,et al.  The effect of primer-template mismatches on the detection and quantification of nucleic acids using the 5' nuclease assay. , 2010, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[249]  N. Hattori,et al.  New Alzheimer’s disease model mouse specialized for analyzing the function and toxicity of intraneuronal Amyloid β oligomers , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[250]  Rob Knight,et al.  UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection , 2011, Bioinform..

[251]  R. Huerlimann,et al.  Parasitic protozoan interactions with bacterial microbiome in a tropical fish farm , 2019, Aquaculture.

[252]  C. Moraes What regulates mitochondrial DNA copy number in animal cells? , 2001, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[253]  Vasco Elbrecht,et al.  Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol , 2015, PloS one.

[254]  Margaret E. Hunter,et al.  Improving eDNA yield and inhibitor reduction through increased water volumes and multi-filter isolation techniques , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[255]  S. Whyard,et al.  Development and application of an eDNA method to detect and quantify a pathogenic parasite in aquatic ecosystems. , 2015, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[256]  Geoffrey B. Smith,et al.  Short RNA indicator sequences are not completely degraded by autoclaving , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[257]  P. Sorensen,et al.  Optimizing techniques to capture and extract environmental DNA for detection and quantification of fish , 2016, Molecular ecology resources.

[258]  F. Chavez,et al.  Environmental DNA reveals seasonal shifts and potential interactions in a marine community , 2020, Nature Communications.

[259]  B. Deagle,et al.  Quantifying sequence proportions in a DNA‐based diet study using Ion Torrent amplicon sequencing: which counts count? , 2013, Molecular ecology resources.

[260]  J. Amberg,et al.  Comparing Efficiency of American Fisheries Society Standard Snorkeling Techniques to Environmental DNA Sampling Techniques , 2017 .

[261]  M. Bunce,et al.  Testing multiple substrates for terrestrial biodiversity monitoring using environmental DNA metabarcoding , 2020, Molecular ecology resources.

[262]  T. Pauley,et al.  Using environmental DNA and occupancy modelling to identify drivers of eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis) extirpation , 2018, Freshwater Biology.

[263]  C. Goldberg,et al.  Degradation and dispersion limit environmental DNA detection of rare amphibians in wetlands: Increasing efficacy of sampling designs. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[264]  Lynsey R. Harper,et al.  Development and application of environmental DNA surveillance for the threatened crucian carp (Carassius carassius ) , 2018, Freshwater Biology.

[265]  G. Pazour,et al.  Ror2 signaling regulates Golgi structure and transport through IFT20 for tumor invasiveness , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[266]  S. Weiss,et al.  Fish diversity assessment in the headwaters of the Volga River using environmental DNA metabarcoding , 2019, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.

[267]  W. L. Chadderton,et al.  “Sight‐unseen” detection of rare aquatic species using environmental DNA , 2011 .

[268]  Xiaowei Zhang,et al.  Holistic pelagic biodiversity monitoring of the Black Sea via eDNA metabarcoding approach: From bacteria to marine mammals. , 2019, Environment international.

[269]  M. Bunce,et al.  Digging for DNA at depth: rapid universal metabarcoding surveys (RUMS) as a tool to detect coral reef biodiversity across a depth gradient , 2019, PeerJ.

[270]  C. Robinson,et al.  An optimised eDNA protocol for detecting fish in lentic and lotic freshwaters using a small water volume , 2019, PloS one.

[271]  C. Hardy,et al.  An environmental DNA‐based method for monitoring spawning activity: a case study, using the endangered Macquarie perch (Macquaria australasica) , 2017 .

[272]  K. Coyne,et al.  Improved Methods for Capture, Extraction, and Quantitative Assay of Environmental DNA from Asian Bigheaded Carp (Hypophthalmichthys spp.) , 2014, PloS one.

[273]  T. Quinn,et al.  Concentrations of environmental DNA (eDNA) reflect spawning salmon abundance at fine spatial and temporal scales , 2018 .

[274]  L. Orlando,et al.  Meta‐barcoding of ‘dirt’ DNA from soil reflects vertebrate biodiversity , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[275]  H. Doi,et al.  Use of Droplet Digital PCR for Estimation of Fish Abundance and Biomass in Environmental DNA Surveys , 2015, PloS one.

[276]  C. Goldberg,et al.  Spatial and temporal patterns of environmental DNA detection to inform sampling protocols in lentic and lotic systems , 2020, Ecology and evolution.

[277]  M. Galan,et al.  Metabarcoding for the parallel identification of several hundred predators and their preys: application to bat species diet analysis , 2017, bioRxiv.

[278]  E. Harvey,et al.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding studies are critically affected by substrate selection , 2019, Molecular ecology resources.

[279]  K. McKelvey,et al.  Capture enrichment of aquatic environmental DNA: A first proof of concept , 2018, Molecular ecology resources.

[280]  Erin K. Grey,et al.  Early detection monitoring for aquatic non-indigenous species: Optimizing surveillance, incorporating advanced technologies, and identifying research needs. , 2017, Journal of environmental management.

[281]  Jessie D Golding,et al.  Using environmental DNA methods to improve winter surveys for rare carnivores: DNA from snow and improved noninvasive techniques , 2019, Biological Conservation.

[282]  M. Berumen,et al.  Beyond the visual: using metabarcoding to characterize the hidden reef cryptobiome , 2019, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[283]  C. Davy,et al.  Development and Validation of Environmental DNA (eDNA) Markers for Detection of Freshwater Turtles , 2015, PloS one.

[284]  Hermann Neumann,et al.  Metabarcoding of marine environmental DNA based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[285]  Lynsey R. Harper,et al.  Finding Crush: Environmental DNA Analysis as a Tool for Tracking the Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas in a Marine Estuary , 2020, Frontiers in Marine Science.

[286]  K. Walsh,et al.  Performance of amplicon and shotgun sequencing for accurate biomass estimation in invertebrate community samples , 2018, Molecular ecology resources.

[287]  Nancy Knowlton,et al.  Random sampling causes the low reproducibility of rare eukaryotic OTUs in Illumina COI metabarcoding , 2017, PeerJ.

[288]  G. Guillera‐Arroita,et al.  Dealing with false‐positive and false‐negative errors about species occurrence at multiple levels , 2017 .

[289]  Andrew S. Buxton,et al.  Seasonal variation in environmental DNA in relation to population size and environmental factors , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[290]  Beth Shapiro,et al.  Minimizing polymerase biases in metabarcoding. , 2018, Molecular ecology resources.

[291]  Robert S. Arkle,et al.  Factors influencing detection of eDNA from a stream‐dwelling amphibian , 2014, Molecular ecology resources.

[292]  P. Hebert,et al.  bold: The Barcode of Life Data System (http://www.barcodinglife.org) , 2007, Molecular ecology notes.

[293]  Kristy Deiner,et al.  Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities , 2017, Molecular ecology.

[294]  D. Bolster,et al.  Influence of Stream Bottom Substrate on Retention and Transport of Vertebrate Environmental DNA. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[295]  V. Savolainen,et al.  Behavior and season affect crayfish detection and density inference using environmental DNA , 2017, Ecology and evolution.

[296]  Matthew A. Barnes,et al.  The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics , 2016, Conservation Genetics.

[297]  G. Daily,et al.  Long-term declines in bird populations in tropical agricultural countryside , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[298]  R. Rodríguez-Estrella,et al.  Comparing individual raptor species and coarse taxonomic groups as biodiversity surrogates in desert ecosystems , 2019, Biodiversity and Conservation.