While in recent years environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding surveys have shown great promise as an alternative monitoring method, the integration into existing marine monitoring programs may be confounded by the dispersal of the eDNA signal. Currents and tidal influences could transport eDNA over great distances, inducing false‐positive species detection, leading to inaccurate biodiversity assessments and, ultimately, mismanagement of marine environments. In this study, we determined the ability of eDNA metabarcoding surveys to distinguish localized signals obtained from four marine habitats within a small spatial scale (<5 km) subject to significant tidal and along‐shore water flow. Our eDNA metabarcoding survey detected 86 genera, within 77 families and across 11 phyla using three established metabarcoding assays targeting fish (16S rRNA gene), crustacean (16S rRNA gene) and eukaryotic (cytochrome oxidase subunit 1) diversity. Ordination and cluster analyses for both taxonomic and OTU data sets show distinct eDNA signals between the sampled habitats, suggesting dispersal of eDNA among habitats was limited. Individual taxa with strong habitat preferences displayed localized eDNA signals in accordance with their respective habitat, whereas taxa known to be less habitat‐specific generated more ubiquitous signals. Our data add to evidence that eDNA metabarcoding surveys in marine environments detect a broad range of taxa that are spatially discrete. Our work also highlights that refinement of assay choice is essential to realize the full potential of eDNA metabarcoding surveys in marine biodiversity monitoring programs.

Current molecular biology laboratories rely heavily on the purification and manipulation of nucleic acids. Yet, commonly used centrifuge- and column-based protocols require specialised equipment, often use toxic reagents, and are not economically scalable or practical to use in a high-throughput manner. Although it has been known for some time that magnetic beads can provide an elegant answer to these issues, the development of open-source protocols based on beads has been limited. In this article, we provide step-by-step instructions for an easy synthesis of functionalised magnetic beads, and detailed protocols for their use in the high-throughput purification of plasmids, genomic DNA, RNA and total nucleic acid (TNA) from a range of bacterial, animal, plant, environmental and synthetic sources. We also provide a bead-based protocol for bisulfite conversion and size selection of DNA and RNA fragments. Comparison to other methods highlights the capability, versatility, and extreme cost-effectiveness of using magnetic beads. These open-source protocols and the associated webpage (https://bomb.bio) can serve as a platform for further protocol customisation and community engagement.

Population genetic data underpin many studies of behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary processes in wild populations and contribute to effective conservation management. However, collecting genetic samples can be challenging when working with endangered, invasive, or cryptic species. Environmental DNA (eDNA) offers a way to sample genetic material non-invasively without requiring visual observation. While eDNA has been trialed extensively as a biodiversity and biosecurity monitoring tool with a strong taxonomic focus, it has yet to be fully explored as a means for obtaining population genetic information. Here, we review current research that employs eDNA approaches for the study of populations. We outline challenges facing eDNA-based population genetic methodologies, and suggest avenues of research for future developments. We advocate that with further optimizations, this emergent field holds great potential as part of the population genetics toolkit.

BackgroundThe utility of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding surveys to accurately detect species depends on the degree of DNA dispersal. Multiple marine studies have observed only minimal eDNA transport by horizontal water movement across small spatial scales, leading to the conclusion that spatially specific eDNA signals accurately resemble in‐field species assemblages along a horizontal axis. Marine communities, however, are also structured vertically according to depth. In marine environments displaying permanent water stratification, vertical zonation patterns may be more apparent and present on smaller spatial scales (i.e., meters) than horizontal community structuring. The scale at which eDNA signals differ along a vertical transect and the accuracy of eDNA metabarcoding in revealing naturally stratified communities have yet to be assessed.Methods and resultsIn this study, we determined the ability of eDNA metabarcoding surveys to distinguish vertically localized community assemblages. To test this, we sampled three vertical transects along a steep rock wall at three depths (0 m, 4 m, 15 m), covering two distinct communities that were separated by near‐permanent water column stratification in the form of a strong halocline at ~3 m. Using three metabarcoding assays, our eDNA metabarcoding survey detected 54 taxa, across 46 families and 7 phyla, including 19 fish, 15 crustacean, and 8 echinoderm species. Ordination and cluster analyses show distinct eDNA signals across the halocline for all three replicate transects, suggesting that vertical dispersal of eDNA between communities was limited. Furthermore, eDNA signals of individual taxa were only retrieved within their observed vertical distribution, providing biological validation for the obtained results. Our results demonstrate, for the first time, the need to take into consideration oceanographic (e.g. water column stratification) and biological processes (e.g. vertical community structuring) when designing sampling strategies for marine eDNA metabarcoding surveys.

DNA extraction from environmental samples (environmental DNA; eDNA) for metabarcoding‐based biodiversity studies is gaining popularity as a noninvasive, time‐efficient, and cost‐effective monitoring tool. The potential benefits are promising for marine conservation, as the marine biome is frequently under‐surveyed due to its inaccessibility and the consequent high costs involved. With increasing numbers of eDNA‐related publications have come a wide array of capture and extraction methods. Without visual species confirmation, inconsistent use of laboratory protocols hinders comparability between studies because the efficiency of target DNA isolation may vary. We determined an optimal protocol (capture and extraction) for marine eDNA research based on total DNA yield measurements by comparing commonly employed methods of seawater filtering and DNA isolation. We compared metabarcoding results of both targeted (small taxonomic group with species‐level assignment) and universal (broad taxonomic group with genus/family‐level assignment) approaches obtained from replicates treated with the optimal and a low‐performance capture and extraction protocol to determine the impact of protocol choice and DNA yield on biodiversity detection. Filtration through cellulose‐nitrate membranes and extraction with Qiagen's DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit outperformed other combinations of capture and extraction methods, showing a ninefold improvement in DNA yield over the poorest performing methods. Use of optimized protocols resulted in a significant increase in OTU and species richness for targeted metabarcoding assays. However, changing protocols made little difference to the OTU and taxon richness obtained using universal metabarcoding assays. Our results demonstrate an increased risk of false‐negative species detection for targeted eDNA approaches when protocols with poor DNA isolation efficacy are employed. Appropriate optimization is therefore essential for eDNA monitoring to remain a powerful, efficient, and relatively cheap method for biodiversity assessments. For seawater, we advocate filtration through cellulose‐nitrate membranes and extraction with Qiagen's DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit or phenol‐chloroform‐isoamyl for successful implementation of eDNA multi‐marker metabarcoding surveys.

Population genetic data underpin many studies of behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary processes in wild populations and contribute to effective conservation management. However, collecting genetic samples can be challenging when working with endangered, invasive, or cryptic species. Environmental DNA (eDNA) offers a way to sample genetic material non-invasively without requiring visual observation. While eDNA has been trialed extensively as a biodiversity and biosecurity monitoring tool with a strong taxonomic focus, it has yet to be fully explored as a means for obtaining population genetic information. Here, we review current research that employs eDNA approaches for the study of populations. We outline challenges facing eDNA-based population genetic methodologies, and suggest avenues of research for future developments. We advocate that with further optimizations, this emergent field holds great potential as part of the population genetics toolkit.

19Current molecular biology laboratories rely heavily on the purification and manipulation of 20 nucleic acids. Yet, commonly used centrifuge-and column-based protocols require 21 specialised equipment, often use toxic reagents and are not economically scalable or practical 22 to use in a high-throughput manner. Although it has been known for some time that magnetic 23 beads can provide an elegant answer to these issues, the development of open-source 24 protocols based on beads has been limited. In this article, we provide step-by-step 25 instructions for an easy synthesis of functionalised magnetic beads, and detailed protocols 26 for their use in the high-throughput purification of plasmids, genomic DNA and total RNA from 27 different sources, as well as environmental TNA and PCR amplicons. We also provide a bead-28 based protocol for bisulfite conversion, and size selection of DNA and RNA fragments. 29Comparison to other methods highlights the capability, versatility and extreme cost-30 effectiveness of using magnetic beads. These open source protocols and the associated 31 webpage (https://bomb.bio) can serve as a platform for further protocol customisation and 32 community engagement. 33 3 Abbreviations 34 BOMB: Bio-On-Magnetic-Beads 35 SPRI: Solid-Phase Reversible Immobilisation 36 MNP: magnetic nanoparticle 37 38The authors would like to thank all members of the Jurkowski and Hore laboratories for 456helping to optimise and test the BOMB protocols. We are also indebted to Ken Wyber (Otago 457Polytechnic) for help with laser cutting magnetic plates. We are grateful to Dr. Renata 458Jurkowska for critical reading of the manuscript. We would like to thank the wider research 459 community for offering unpublished information and resources concerning magnetic bead 460 22 preparation and utility, in particular, Dr Ethan Ford, Dr James Hadfield, Dr Brant Faircloth, Dr 461 Nadin Rohland and associated authors. 462 Author's contribution 463 The idea was conceived by TPJ and TH. Protocol setup and optimisation was led by PO, PS, 464 DB, TPJ and TH, with contributions from SH, JF, VM, LS, VJS, G-JJ and FvM. Laser cutting 465 designs were contributed by SRH. The electron microscope analysis was done by KH. The 466 website and its content were created by TM, PS, PO, TPJ and TH. The manuscript was written 467 by TPJ, TH, PS and PO. All authors contributed to the editing of the manuscript and approved 468 its final version. 469

The field of eDNA is growing exponentially in response to the need for detecting rare and invasive species for management and conservation decisions. Developing technologies and standard protocols within the biosecurity sector must address myriad challenges associated with marine environments, including salinity, temperature, advective and deposition processes, hydrochemistry and pH, and contaminating agents. These approaches must also provide a robust framework that meets the need for biosecurity management decisions regarding threats to human health, environmental resources, and economic interests, especially in areas with limited clean-laboratory resources and experienced personnel. This contribution aims to facilitate dialogue and innovation within this sector by reviewing current approaches for sample collection, post-sampling capture and concentration of eDNA, preservation, and extraction, all through a biosecurity monitoring lens.