Evaluating monitoring options for conservation: comparing traditional and environmental DNA tools for a critically endangered mammal.
Environmental DNA
Systematic conservation planning
Yangtze finless porpoise
Journal
Die Naturwissenschaften
ISSN: 1432-1904
Titre abrégé: Naturwissenschaften
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0400767
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Feb 2019
18 Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
03
08
2018
accepted:
30
01
2019
revised:
06
12
2018
entrez:
20
2
2019
pubmed:
20
2
2019
medline:
23
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
While conservation management has made tremendous strides to date, deciding where, when and how to invest limited monitoring budgets is a central concern for impactful decision-making. New analytical tools, such as environmental DNA (eDNA), are now facilitating broader biodiversity monitoring at unprecedented scales, in part, due to time, and presumably cost, of methodological efficiency. Genetic approaches vary from conventional PCR (cPCR; species presence), to metabarcoding (community structure), and qPCR (relative DNA abundance, detection sensitivity). Knowing when to employ these techniques over traditional protocols could enable practitioners to make more informed choices concerning data collection. Using 12 species-specific primers designed for cPCR, eDNA analysis of the Yangtze finless porpoise (YFP; Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis), a critically endangered aquatic mammal within the Yangtze River, we validated and optimized these primers for use in qPCR. We tested repeatability and sensitivity to detect YFP eDNA and subsequently compared the cost of traditional (visual and capture) sampling to eDNA tools. Our results suggest cPCR as the least expensive sampling option but the lack of PCR sensitivity suggests it may not be the most robust method for this taxon, predominately useful as a supplementary tool or with large expected populations. Alternatively, qPCR remained less expensive than traditional surveys, representing a highly repeatable and sensitive method for this behaviorally elusive species. Cost comparisons of surveying practices have scarcely been discussed; however, given budgetary constraints particularly for developing countries with limited local oversight but high endemism, we encourage managers to carefully consider the trade-offs among accuracy, cost, coverage, and speed for biodiversity monitoring.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30778682
doi: 10.1007/s00114-019-1605-1
pii: 10.1007/s00114-019-1605-1
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA Primers
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
9Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 31400468
Références
Nature. 2000 May 11;405(6783):243-53
pubmed: 10821285
Science. 2004 Jan 16;303(5656):285
pubmed: 14726557
Biol Lett. 2008 Aug 23;4(4):423-5
pubmed: 18400683
Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Jan;11(1):31-46
pubmed: 19997069
Mol Ecol. 2012 Jun;21(11):2565-73
pubmed: 22151771
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35868
pubmed: 22563411
Mol Ecol. 2012 Jun;21(11):2555-8
pubmed: 22624944
BMC Bioinformatics. 2012 Jun 18;13:134
pubmed: 22708584
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e41781
pubmed: 22952587
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58316
pubmed: 23472178
Mol Ecol Resour. 2014 Mar;14(2):374-80
pubmed: 24119154
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Dec;30(12):2725-9
pubmed: 24132122
Mol Ecol Resour. 2015 May;15(3):543-56
pubmed: 25327646
Ecol Evol. 2014 Dec;4(24):4701-35
pubmed: 25558364
Mol Ecol Resour. 2016 Jan;16(1):29-41
pubmed: 26032773
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 22;10(7):e0130965
pubmed: 26200348
Mol Ecol. 2016 Feb;25(4):929-42
pubmed: 26479867
Curr Microbiol. 2016 Mar;72(3):306-14
pubmed: 26620537
Mol Ecol. 2016 Jul;25(13):3101-19
pubmed: 27095076
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 02;11(8):e0160377
pubmed: 27483378
Mol Ecol Resour. 2017 May;17(3):523-532
pubmed: 27617668
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 14;11(9):e0162493
pubmed: 27626642
J Appl Ecol. 2016 Jun;53(3):722-732
pubmed: 27773942
Conserv Biol. 2017 Oct;31(5):1173-1182
pubmed: 28221696