eDNA als neues Werkzeug für das Gewässermonitoring – Potenzial und Rahmenbedingungen anhand ausgewählter Anwendungsbeispiele aus Österreich

Schenekar, Tamara; Schletterer, Martin; Weiss, Steven

doi:10.1007/s00506-020-00656-x

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…without any obvious signs of biological source material' [65] (p. 4). However, while the presence of a species can be shown, abundance can only be roughly estimated at this point, and size and age cannot be identified (making statements on reproduction rates or population structure impossible with this method) [67,68]. But further research or combining e-DNA with fieldwork might change this.…”

Section: Challenges To Standardized Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking

Grimm

2021

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Offsets are increasingly used to compensate for unavoidable development impacts on species and habitats. Many offset programs pursue no net loss, but research on the success of these programs is lacking, including research on conservation banking’s success in conserving protected species under the US Endangered Species Act. This article provides a case study analysis of two conservation banks in the state of California, comparing the conservation gains provided by banks with the losses from development impacts. It provides an analysis of credits and metrics to determine whether the gains are equal to the losses in terms of type, condition, and amount. Results do show that the gains exceed the losses in terms of acreage. However, the program uses indirect metrics (acreage), and the equivalence of the losses and gains, besides habitat type and size, is not reflected. Banks provide a baseline in their documentation and conduct monitoring of species abundance and habitat quality, but they do not use it to measure additional conservation gains. More detailed metrics and transparent indices to certify the acres in production could allow for a quantification of conservation benefits and an evaluation of program success. However, selecting standardized metrics is challenging because they need to be species-specific to reflect the goal of species recovery, and still be operational in practice.

show abstract

Section: Challenges To Standardized Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking

Grimm

2021

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, applying eDNA metabarcoding comes with certain challenges such as the selection of appropriate sampling strategies and wet lab processing steps, completeness of reference databases, and choice of appropriate primers (Evans et al 2017, Kumar et al 2022. As a prerequisite for a comprehensive biodiversity monitoring, suitable primers are crucial to avoid false-negative detection and accurately depict the present fish fauna (Schenekar et al 2020). Mock community metabarcoding is an efficient in vitro approach to test the performance of primers using an artificially composed DNA mixture representing the expected target community for biomonitoring (Hänfling et al 2016, Elbrecht et al 2019.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating five primer pairs for environmental DNA metabarcoding of Central European fish species based on mock communities

Macher¹,

Schütz²,

Yildiz³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has become a powerful tool for examining fish communities. The demand for methodological standardization and the implementation of eDNA-based assessments into the regulatory monitoring (e.g., Water Framework Directive) are imminent. To ensure methodical accuracy and to meet regulatory standards, various sampling, laboratory and bioinformatic workflows have been established. However, a crucial prerequisite for a comprehensive fish monitoring is the choice of suitable primer pairs to accurately depict the present fish fauna. Various fish-specific primer pairs targeting different genetic marker regions were published over the past decade. However, a dedicated study to evaluate performance of frequently applied fish primer pairs to assess Central European fish species has not yet been conducted. Therefore, we created an artificial community composed of DNA from 45 Central European fish species and examined the discriminatory power and reproducibility of five fish primer pairs. Our study highlights the effect of the primer choice and bioinformatic filtering on the outcome of eDNA metabarcoding results. From the five primer pairs evaluated in our study the tele02 (12S gene) primer pair proved to be best choice for eDNA metabarcoding of Central European freshwater fish. Here, the MiFish-U (12S) and SeaDNA-mid (COI) primer pairs also displayed good discriminatory power and reproducibility. However, more general primer pairs (i.e., targeting vertebrates) were found to be less reliable and generated high numbers of false-positive and false-negative detections. Our study illustrates how careful selection of primer pairs and bioinformatic pipelines can make eDNA metabarcoding a more reliable tool for fish monitoring.

show abstract