2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-017-3288-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Environmental DNA as an efficient tool for detecting invasive crayfishes in freshwater ponds

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
50
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
1
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To date, a handful of crayfish eDNA studies have shown promising results but have largely focused on lentic environments (e.g. Agersnap et al., ; Cai et al., ; Dougherty et al., ; Mauvisseau et al., ; Tréguier et al., ), although one study (Ikeda, Doi, Tanaka, Kawai, & Negishi, ) used eDNA to successfully detect the endemic Japanese crayfish ( Cambaroides japonicus ) in small headwater streams. Despite these encouraging results, it remains to be seen whether eDNA can reflect presence and abundance of narrowly endemic crayfishes in larger, perennial streams where eDNA transport is more likely to be a problem (Deiner & Altermatt, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To date, a handful of crayfish eDNA studies have shown promising results but have largely focused on lentic environments (e.g. Agersnap et al., ; Cai et al., ; Dougherty et al., ; Mauvisseau et al., ; Tréguier et al., ), although one study (Ikeda, Doi, Tanaka, Kawai, & Negishi, ) used eDNA to successfully detect the endemic Japanese crayfish ( Cambaroides japonicus ) in small headwater streams. Despite these encouraging results, it remains to be seen whether eDNA can reflect presence and abundance of narrowly endemic crayfishes in larger, perennial streams where eDNA transport is more likely to be a problem (Deiner & Altermatt, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To date, a handful of crayfish eDNA studies have shown promising results but have largely focused on lentic environments (e.g. Agersnap et al, 2017;Cai et al, 2017;Dougherty et al, 2016;Mauvisseau et al, 2017;Tr eguier et al, 2014), although one study (Ikeda, Doi, Tanaka, Kawai, & Negishi, 2016) used eDNA to successfully detect the endemic Japanese crayfish (Cambaroides japonicus) in small headwater streams.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this context, further monitoring could be assisted with the development of eDNA techniques targeted for I. nubecula. eDNA is a relatively new tool available to conservationists, ecologists and environmental managers alike (Thomsen & Willerslev, 2014) and can significantly aid in understanding a species home range with reduced physical surveying needs and reduced costs (Mauvisseau et al, 2017). Access to this DNA sequence and a greater comprehension of the phylogenetic relationships (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast to other essays developed for crayfish detection (Agersnap et al 2017; Cai et al 2017; Dougherty et al 2016; Mauvisseau et al 2018), our single, closed tube reaction, reduces not only the processing time and number of reactions but also the risk of contamination inherent to carry out a larger number of amplifications. HRM has already proved highly specific and useful for multiple species identification (Naue et al 2014) and for the management of terrestrial invasive species (Ramón-Laca et al 2014) but had never been applied to the detection of aquatic invasive species and their impacts using eDNA.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…While most studies have mainly focussed on crayfish eDNA detection in closed systems (Agersnap et al 2017; Cai et al 2017; Dougherty et al 2016; Mauvisseau et al 2018), our method has also proved useful for monitoring in flowing water bodies. This is important for early detection of invasive crayfish which use rivers and streams as a means for dispersal (Bubb, Thom and Lucas 2004), and particularly for A. pallipes whose detection was marginally better using eDNA (7%) than trapping (0%).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%