Search

Determining the timing and location of fish reproductive events is crucial for the implementation of correct management and conservation schemes. Conventional methods used to monitor these events are often unable to assess the spawning activity directly or can be invasive and therefore problematic. This is especially the case when threatened fish populations are the study subject, such as the Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus L.) populations in Windermere (Cumbria, UK). Arctic charr populations have been studied in this lake since the 1940s, and the locations and characteristics of spawning grounds have been described in detail using techniques such as hydroacoustics, as well as physical and visual surveys of the lake bottom. Here, in conjunction with established netting surveys, we added an environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding approach to assess the spatial distribution of Arctic charr in the lake throughout the year to test whether this tool could allow us to identify spawning locations and activity. Sampling was carried out between October 2017 and July 2018 at three locations in the lake, covering putative and known spawning sites. eDNA metabarcoding provided accurate spatial and temporal characterization of Arctic charr spawning events. Peaks of Arctic charr relative read counts from eDNA metabarcoding were observed during the spawning season and at specific locations of both putative and known spawning sites. Net catches of mature Arctic charr individuals confirmed the association between the Arctic charr spawning activity and the peaks of eDNA metabarcoding relative read counts. This study demonstrates the ability of eDNA metabarcoding to effectively and efficiently characterize the spatial and temporal nature of fish spawning in lentic systems.

Fishes stocked for recreation and angling can damage freshwater habitats and negatively impact biodiversity. The pond‐associated crucian carp (Carassius carassius) is rare across Europe and is stocked for conservation management in England, but its impacts on pond biota are understudied. Freshwater invertebrates contribute substantially to aquatic biodiversity, encompassing many rare and endemic species, but their small size and high abundance complicate their assessment. Practitioners have employed sweep‐netting and kick‐sampling with microscopy (morphotaxonomy), but specimen size/quality and experience can bias identification. DNA and environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding offer alternative means of invertebrate assessment. We compared invertebrate diversity in ponds (N = 18) with and without crucian carp using morphotaxonomic identification, DNA metabarcoding and eDNA metabarcoding. Five 2 L water samples and 3 min sweep‐net samples were collected at each pond. Inventories produced by morphotaxonomic identification of netted samples, DNA metabarcoding of bulk tissue samples and eDNA metabarcoding of water samples were compared. Alpha diversity was greatest with DNA or eDNA metabarcoding, depending on whether standard or unbiased methods were considered. DNA metabarcoding reflected morphotaxonomic identification, whereas eDNA metabarcoding produced markedly different communities. These complementary tools should be combined for comprehensive invertebrate assessment. Crucian carp presence minimally reduced alpha diversity in ponds, but positively influenced beta diversity through taxon turnover (i.e., ponds with crucian carp contained different invertebrates to fishless ponds). Crucian carp presence contributes to landscape‐scale invertebrate diversity, supporting continued conservation management in England. Our results show that molecular tools can enhance freshwater invertebrate assessment and facilitate development of more accurate and ecologically effective po

The sampling of environmental DNA (eDNA) coupled with cost-efficient and ever-advancing sequencing technology is propelling changes in biodiversity monitoring within aquatic ecosystems. Despite the increasing number of eDNA metabarcoding approaches, the ability to quantify species biomass and abundance in natural systems is still not fully understood. Previous studies have shown positive but sometimes weak correlations between abundance estimates from eDNA metabarcoding data and from conventional capture methods. As both methods have independent biases a lack of concordance is difficult to interpret. Here we tested whether read counts from eDNA metabarcoding provide accurate quantitative estimates of the absolute abundance of fish in holding ponds with known fish biomass and number of individuals. Environmental DNA samples were collected from two fishery ponds with high fish density and broad species diversity. In one pond, two different DNA capture strategies (on-site filtration with enclosed filters and three different preservation buffers versus lab filtration using open filters) were used to evaluate their performance in relation to fish community composition and biomass/abundance estimates. Fish species read counts were significantly correlated with both biomass and abundance, and this result, together with information on fish diversity, was repeatable when open or enclosed filters with different preservation buffers were used. This research demonstrates that eDNA metabarcoding provides accurate qualitative and quantitative information on fish communities in small ponds, and results are consistent between different methods of DNA capture. This method flexibility will be beneficial for future eDNA-based fish monitoring and their integration into fisheries management.

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.

1. The crucian carp (Carassius carassius) is one of few fish species associated with small ponds in the UK. These populations contain genetic diversity not found in Europe and are important to conservation efforts for the species which has declined across its range in Europe. Detection and monitoring of extant crucian carp populations are crucial for conservation success. Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis could be very useful in this respect as a rapid, cost‐efficient monitoring tool. 2. We developed a species‐specific quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay for eDNA surveillance of crucian carp to enable non‐invasive, large‐scale distribution monitoring. We compared fyke netting and eDNA analysis at ponds with (n = 10) and without (n = 10) crucian carp for presence–absence detection. We examined biotic (crucian carp density represented by catch‐per‐unit‐effort [CPUE] estimate) and abiotic influences on eDNA detection probability using a hierarchical occupancy model, and eDNA quantification using a mixed‐effects model. 3. eDNA analysis achieved 90% detection for crucian carp (n = 10), failing in only one pond where presence was known. CPUE estimate and conductivity had positive and negative influences on eDNA detection probability in qPCR replicates respectively. Similarly, conductivity had a negative effect on DNA copy number, whereas copy number increased with CPUE estimate. 4. Our results demonstrate that eDNA analysis could enable detection of crucian carp populations in ponds and benefit ongoing conservation efforts, but imperfect species detection in relation to biotic and abiotic factors and eDNA workflow requires further investigation. Nonetheless, we have established an eDNA framework for the crucian carp as well as sources of imperfect detection which future investigations can build upon.

Environmental DNA offers great potential as a biodiversity monitoring tool. Previous work has demonstrated that eDNA metabarcoding provides reliable information for lake fish monitoring, but important questions remain about temporal and spatial repeatability, which is critical for understanding the ecology of eDNA and developing effective sampling strategies. Here, we carried out comprehensive spatial sampling of England's largest lake, Windermere, during summer and winter to (1) examine repeatability of the method, (2) compare eDNA results with contemporary gill‐net survey data, (3) test the hypothesis of greater spatial structure of eDNA in summer compared to winter due to differences in water mixing between seasons, and (4) compare the effectiveness of shore and offshore sampling for species detection. We find broad consistency between the results from three sampling events in terms of species detection and abundance, with eDNA detecting more species than established methods and being significantly correlated with rank abundance determined by long‐term data. As predicted, spatial structure was much greater in the summer, reflecting less mixing of eDNA than in the winter. For example Arctic charr, a deep-water species, was only detected in deep, midlake samples in the summer, while littoral or benthic species such as minnow and stickleback were more frequently detected in shore samples. By contrast in winter, the eDNA of these species was more uniformly distributed. This has important implications for design of sampling campaigns, for example, deep‐water species could be missed and littoral/benthic species overrepresented by focusing exclusively on shoreline samples collected in the summer.

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a promising tool for rapid and noninvasive biodiversity monitoring. eDNA density is low in environmental samples, and a capture method, such as filtration, is often required to concentrate eDNA for downstream analyses. In this study, six treatments, with differing filter types and pore sizes for eDNA capture, were compared for their efficiency and accuracy to assess fish community structure with known fish abundance and biomass via eDNA metabarcoding. Our results showed that different filters (with the exception of 20‐μm large‐pore filters) were broadly consistent in their DNA capture ability. The 0.45‐μm filters performed the best in terms of total DNA yield, probability of species detection, repeatability within pond and consistency between ponds. However performance of 0.45‐μm filters was only marginally better than for 0.8‐μm filters, while filtration time was significantly longer. Given this trade‐off, the 0.8‐μm filter is the optimal pore size of membrane filter for turbid, eutrophic and high fish density ponds analysed here. The 0.45‐μm Sterivex enclosed filters performed reasonably well and are suitable in situations where on‐site filtration is required. Finally, prefilters are applied only if absolutely essential for reducing the filtration time or increasing the throughput volume of the capture filters. In summary, we found encouraging similarity in the results obtained from different filtration methods, but the optimal pore size of filter or filter type might strongly depend on the water type under study.