Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Comparison of traditional and environmental DNA survey methods for detecting rare and abundant freshwater fish

dc.contributor.authorPiggott, Maxine
dc.contributor.authorBanks, Samuel
dc.contributor.authorBroadhurst, Ben
dc.contributor.authorFulton, Christopher J
dc.contributor.authorLintermans, Mark
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-14T00:40:57Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.date.updated2021-11-28T07:23:22Z
dc.description.abstractDetecting rare species is often a necessity for conservation and management, yet challenging for many field survey methods. Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a highly promising solution that has been shown to outperform many established survey methods. Macquarie perch (Macquaria australasica) is an endangered native species that has declined significantly in range and abundance. Detection of M. australasica was compared with an abundant alien fish species (Oncorhynchus mykiss) using eDNA and three conventional survey methods: gill nets, electrofishing and fyke nets. eDNA occupancy estimates for both fish species were compared using four different models to investigate what effect these differences have on false positives and false negatives for the rare and common fish species. These models used unadjusted eDNA detections in water samples, eDNA detections that have been screened using a limit of detection method to remove potential false positives, eDNA data supplemented with a second survey method, or eDNA data augmented with sequencing of positive polymerase chain reaction replicates. eDNA surveying as a single detection method was found to be more efficient and sensitive compared with each capture method separately and combined. Occupancy estimates for the common and rare species did not vary significantly between the four site occupancy-detection models, suggesting that supplementary data may not have as much effect on occupancy estimates compared with other approaches such as temporal or spatial sampling. We conclude that eDNA outperforms the three established survey methods for both a rare and common freshwater fish species. Although there was no significant effect of augmenting eDNA survey methods with other survey data, additional data may improve confidence in detection, and provide confirmatory evidence for unexpected or new detections of a species.en_AU
dc.description.sponsorshipIcon Water funded the fish survey. ACT Parks and Lands facilitated access to survey sites.Fieldwork was conducted in Ngunnawal country under approval ofthe University of Canberra animal ethics committee (Project CEAE16-11).en_AU
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.issn1052-7613en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/274562
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Inc.en_AU
dc.relationhttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DE130100777en_AU
dc.rights© 2019 The authorsen_AU
dc.sourceAquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystemsen_AU
dc.subjectalien speciesen_AU
dc.subjecteDNAen_AU
dc.subjectendangered speciesen_AU
dc.subjectMacquaria australasicaen_AU
dc.subjectoccupancy modellingen_AU
dc.subjectOncorhynchus mykissen_AU
dc.subjectspecies monitoringen_AU
dc.titleComparison of traditional and environmental DNA survey methods for detecting rare and abundant freshwater fishen_AU
dc.typeJournal articleen_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage184en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage173en_AU
local.contributor.affiliationPiggott, Maxine, College of Science, ANUen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationBanks, Samuel, College of Science, ANUen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationBroadhurst, Ben, University of Canberraen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationFulton, Chris, College of Science, ANUen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationLintermans, Mark, University of Canberraen_AU
local.contributor.authoruidPiggott, Maxine, u4468625en_AU
local.contributor.authoruidBanks, Samuel, u4446668en_AU
local.contributor.authoruidFulton, Chris, u4361200en_AU
local.description.embargo2099-12-31
local.description.notesImported from ARIESen_AU
local.identifier.absfor310304 - Freshwater ecologyen_AU
local.identifier.absfor310599 - Genetics not elsewhere classifieden_AU
local.identifier.ariespublicationa383154xPUB16695en_AU
local.identifier.citationvolume31en_AU
local.identifier.doi10.1002/aqc.3474en_AU
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-85096668603
local.publisher.urlhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/en_AU
local.type.statusPublished Versionen_AU

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Comparison of traditional.pdf
Size:
1.58 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
abcd