首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >Traditional trapping methods outperform eDNA sampling for introduced semi-aquatic snakes
【2h】

Traditional trapping methods outperform eDNA sampling for introduced semi-aquatic snakes

机译:传统捕获方法优于引入的半水蛇的eDNA采样

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Given limited resources for managing invasive species, traditional survey methods may not be feasible to implement at a regional scale. Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling has proven to be an effective method for detecting some invasive species, but comparisons between the detection probability of eDNA and traditional survey methods using modern occupancy modeling methods are rare. We developed a qPCR assay to detect two species of watersnake (Nerodia fasciata and Nerodia sipedon) introduced to California, USA, and we compared the efficacy of eDNA and aquatic trapping. We tested 3–9 water samples each from 30 sites near the known range of N. fasciata, and 61 sites near the known range of N. sipedon. We also deployed aquatic funnel traps at a subset of sites for each species. We detected N. fasciata eDNA in three of nine water samples from just one site, but captured N. fasciata in traps at three of ten sites. We detected N. sipedon eDNA in five of six water samples from one site, which was also the only site of nine at which this species was captured in traps. Traditional trapping surveys had a higher probability of detecting watersnakes than eDNA surveys, and both survey methods had higher detection probability for N. sipedon than N. fasciata. Occupancy models that integrated both trapping and eDNA surveys estimated that 5 sites (95% Credible Interval: 4–10) of 91 were occupied by watersnakes (both species combined), although snakes were only detected at four sites (three for N. fasciata, one for N. sipedon). Our study shows that despite the many successes of eDNA surveys, traditional sampling methods can have higher detection probability for some species. We recommend those tasked with managing species invasions explicitly compare eDNA and traditional survey methods in an occupancy framework to inform their choice of the best method for detecting nascent populations.
机译:由于用于管理入侵物种的资源有限,传统的调查方法可能无法在区域规模上实施。事实证明,环境DNA(eDNA)采样是检测某些入侵物种的有效方法,但很少有人将eDNA的检测概率与使用现代占用模型方法的传统调查方法进行比较。我们开发了一种qPCR分析方法,可以检测引入美国加利福尼亚的两种水蛇(Nerodia fasciata和Nerodia sipedon),并且比较了eDNA和水生诱捕的功效。我们测试了3–9个水样,每个样品分别来自已知的筋膜猪笼草范围内的30个位置和已知的Sipedon猪笼草范围内的61个位置。我们还在每个物种的一部分地点部署了水生漏斗陷阱。我们仅从一个站点的九个水样中就检测到了筋膜猪笼草的eDNA,但是在十个站点中的三个站点的陷阱中捕获了筋膜猪笼草。我们在一个地点的六个水样中,有五个在水样中检测到了五齿猪笼草的eDNA,这也是九个在陷阱中捕获该物种的唯一地点。传统的诱捕调查比eDNA调查具有更高的检测蛇行的可能性,并且两种调查方法对金边猪笼草的检出概率都比fasciata的高。结合了诱捕和eDNA调查的居住模型估计,水蛇(两个物种合计)占据了91个地点中的5个地点(95%可信区间:4–10),尽管仅在四个地点发现了蛇(三个为 N fasciata ,一个代表 N sipedon )。我们的研究表明,尽管eDNA调查取得了许多成功,但传统的采样方法对于某些物种可能具有更高的检测概率。我们建议负责管理物种入侵的人员在居住框架中明确比较eDNA和传统调查方法,以告知他们选择最佳方法来检测新生种群。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号