MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Navigating the trade‐offs between environmental DNA and conventional field surveys for improved amphibian monitoring
Navigating the trade‐offs between environmental DNA and conventional field surveys for improved amphibian monitoring
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Navigating the trade‐offs between environmental DNA and conventional field surveys for improved amphibian monitoring
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Navigating the trade‐offs between environmental DNA and conventional field surveys for improved amphibian monitoring
Navigating the trade‐offs between environmental DNA and conventional field surveys for improved amphibian monitoring

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Navigating the trade‐offs between environmental DNA and conventional field surveys for improved amphibian monitoring
Navigating the trade‐offs between environmental DNA and conventional field surveys for improved amphibian monitoring
Journal Article

Navigating the trade‐offs between environmental DNA and conventional field surveys for improved amphibian monitoring

2022
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
The need for efficient, accurate biodiversity monitoring is growing, especially for globally imperiled taxa, such as amphibians. Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis holds enormous potential for enhancing monitoring programs, but as this tool is increasingly adopted, it is imperative for users to understand its potential benefits and shortcomings. We conducted a comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of two eDNA methodologies (quantitative (q)PCR and metabarcoding) and conventional field sampling approaches (seining, dipnetting, and visual encounter surveys) in a system of 20 ponds containing six different amphibian species. Using an occupancy modeling framework, we estimated differences in detection sensitivity across methods, with a focus on how eDNA survey design could be further optimized. Overall, both metabarcoding and qPCR were competitive with or improved upon conventional methods. Specifically, qPCR (species‐specific approach) was the most effective technique for detecting two rare species, the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and California red‐legged frog (Rana draytonii), with a detection probability of >0.80 per survey. Metabarcoding (community approach) estimated amphibian diversity with comparable rates to field techniques on average, and detected an additional 41 vertebrate taxa. However, for two abundant species (western toads, Anaxyrus boreas, and Pacific chorus frogs, Pseudacris regilla), field techniques outperformed metabarcoding, especially as individuals metamorphosed. Our results indicate that eDNA approaches would be most effective when paired with visual encounter surveys to detect terrestrial life stages, and that more optimization, specifically primer choice and validation, is needed. By comparing methods across a diverse set of ponds and species, we provide guidance for future studies integrating eDNA approaches into amphibian monitoring.