Search

To advance national efforts for the detection and biosurveillance of aquatic invasive species (AIS), we employed a community consensus process to enable the incorporation of environmental DNA (eDNA) detection data into the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) database (https://nas.er. usgs.gov/eDNA/). Our goal was to identify minimum standards and best practices for the verification of eDNA data by working closely with AIS eDNA community practitioners and natural resource managers across government, private and academic sectors. To better inform management decisions, verified AIS eDNA data will be displayed on a separate mapping layer alongside visual sighting data with the inclusion of additional information on the eDNA methods employed to collect and produce the data. To allow for eDNA data display, we produced consensus derived online documents including a submission application and data submission template and are developing a guidance document for detailing the eDNA data submission process. We also developed a communication plan including a mechanism for reporting detections to appropriate managers for consideration prior to display. The products of these efforts are an application and data submission process that will be used in the new environmental DNA data layer on the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) database. Herein, we detail how we engaged the eDNA community for consensus of our standards, share lessons learned from the process, and describe the benefits of such an approach at instilling confidence among the research and decision-maker community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interest in the field of environmental DNA (eDNA) is growing rapidly and eDNA surveys are becoming an important consideration for aquatic resource managers dealing with invasive species. However, in order for eDNA monitoring to mature as a research and management tool, there are several critical knowledge gaps that must be filled. One such gap is the fate of eDNA materials in the aquatic environment. Understanding the environmental factors that influence the decay of eDNA and how these factors impact detection probabilities over time and space could have significant implications for eDNA survey design and data interpretation. Here we experimentally explore decay of eDNA associated with bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) biological waste collected from an aquaculture filtration system and with sperm collected from captive silver carp (H. molitrix), and how decay may be influenced by differing levels of water turbulence, temperature, microbial load, and pH. We found that the decay patterns of eDNA associated with both H. nobilis biological waste and H. molitrix milt significantly fit monophasic exponential decay curves. Secondly, we observed that the highest temperature we tested resulted in a decay half-life as much as 5.5× more rapid than the lowest temperature we tested. When we suppressed microbial loads in eDNA samples, we observed that overall losses of eDNA were reduced by about 2.5×. When we amended eDNA samples with pond water the half-life of eDNA was reduced by about 2.25×, despite relatively little apparent increase in the overall microbial load. This pattern indicated that species constituency of the microbial community, in addition to microbial load, might play a critical role in eDNA degradation. A shift in pH from 6.5 to 8.0 in the samples resulted in a 1.6× reduction in eDNA halflife. Water turbulence in our study had no apparent effect on eDNA decay. When we combined different temperature, pH, and microbial load treatments to create a rapid decay condition and a slow decay condition, and tracked eDNA decay over 91 days, we observed a 5.0× greater loss of eDNA by Day 5 under rapid decay conditions than under slow decay conditions. At the end of the trials, the differences in eDNA loss between the rapid decay and baseline and slow decay conditions were 0.1× and 3.3×, respectively. Our results strongly demonstrate the potential for environmental factors to influence eDNA fate and, thus, the interpretation of eDNA survey results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]