Sampling Design for Early Detection of Aquatic Invasive Species in Great Lakes Ports

Abstract

We evaluated a pilot aquatic invasive species (AIS) early detection monitoring program in Lake Superior that was designed to detect newly introduced fishes. We established survey protocols for three major ports (Duluth-Superior, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay) and designed an adaptive cycle for routine evaluation of survey performance. Among the three ports, we found both similarities (species richness) and differences (introduced species detectability, species detection efficiency) with respect to AIS survey performance. Despite those differences, our analysis indicated potential for increasing detection efficiency at all three ports by exploiting differences in fish assemblages and sampling gears to increase rare species encounters. Using this information in the adaptive cycle, we demonstrate the ability to improve AIS detection efficiency. Our pilot monitoring program with its adaptive cycle of assessment, refinement, and implementation provides a performance-based approach to increase AIS detection efficiency over the course of a survey and within practical resource constraints. Diseño de muestreo para la detección temprana de especies acuáticas invasivas en los puertos de los Grandes LagosSe evaluó un programa piloto de monitoreo para la detección temprana de especies acuáticas invasivas (EAI) en el lago Superior, mismo que fue diseñado para detectar peces recién introducidos. Se establecieron protocolos de muestreo en tres puertos importantes (Duluth-Superior, Sault Ste. Marie y Thunder Bay) y se diseñó un circuito adaptativo para evaluar de forma rutinaria el desempeño del muestreo. Con respecto al desempeño del EAI, se encontraron similitudes (riqueza de especies) y diferencias (capacidad de detección de especies introducidas y eficiencia en la detección de especies) entre los tres puertos. Pese a dichas diferencias, los análisis indicaron que existe potencial en los tres puertos para incrementar la eficiencia en la detección de especies si se aprovechan las diferencias entre ensambles ícticos y entre artes de pesca para el muestreo con el fin de incrementar el encuentro de especies raras. Al utilizar esta información en el circuito adaptativo, se corrobora la habilidad para mejorar la detección del EAI. Nuestro programa de monitoreo piloto, el circuito adaptativo de evaluación, su refinamiento e implementación representan un enfoque basado en el desempeño, cuyo objetivo es incrementar la eficiencia en la detección de EAI en el curso de un muestreo y con limitaciones realistas de recursos. Modèle d'Échantillonnage pour la Détection Précoce des Espéces Aquatique Invasives aux Ports des Grands LacsNous avons évalué un programme pilote de surveillance de la détection précoce d'une espèce aquatique invasive (EAI) [Aquatic invasive species (AIS)] dans le Lac Supérieur, conçu pour détecter les poissons nouvellement introduits. Nous avons établis des protocoles de surveillance pour trois ports majeurs (Duluth-Superieur, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay), et créé un cycle adaptatif pour l'évaluation habituelle des ré...

Comparison of fish detections, community diversity, and relative abundance using environmental DNA metabarcoding and traditional gears

“…Similar studies have found that, depending on the body of water, 60 to >200 samples from a single site (i.e., lake or embayment) during a sampling event with an optimized mixture of fisheries gears would be needed to sample most (>90%) of a fish community (Hoffman et al, 2011;Hoffman et al, 2015;Trebitz et al, 2009). We consistently found that the multilocus eDNA metabarcoding assays could detect 50% or 95% of a fish community in fewer samples, as compared to a traditional gear approach.…”

“…We consistently found that the multilocus eDNA metabarcoding assays could detect 50% or 95% of a fish community in fewer samples, as compared to a traditional gear approach. Similar studies have found that, depending on the body of water, 60 to >200 samples from a single site (i.e., lake or embayment) during a sampling event with an optimized mixture of fisheries gears would be needed to sample most (>90%) of a fish community (Hoffman et al, 2011;Hoffman et al, 2015;Trebitz et al, 2009). Estimates based on F I G U R E 5 Boxplot distributions of the predicted number of samples required for either an eDNA metabarcoding sample (combined 12S and 16S data; dark gray) or traditional gear (light gray) required to sample 50% and 95% of fish species for each inland (n = 8) lake community based on Chao (1987) and first-order jackknife (Burnham and Overton 1978) estimators.…”

“…In addition, we tested if there was a benefit of using a multilocus eDNA metabarcoding (combining information from both assays) survey, as compared to a traditional gear survey. Specifically, we used information in species accumulation curves to extrapolate how many samples were required to sample 95% of the fish community at each lake (Hoffman et al, 2011;Hoffman et al, 2015;Trebitz et al, 2009). First, we estimated the total number of species in a fish community using the Chao (1987) and first-order jackknife (Burnham & Overton, 1978) estimators with 95% confidence intervals in SpadeR (Chao & Chiu, 2014) based on species detections with traditional gear only.…”

“…For instance, it is common to use multiple traditional gears to sample a fish community because their combined use reduces the effects of known gear biases (Breen & Ruetz, 2006;Cross et al, 1995;Ruetz et al, 2007). Importantly, a benefit to sampling with traditional fish gear is the identification of live specimens (Hoffman et al, 2015;Trebitz et al, 2009), whereas eDNA infers the presence of a species via the amplification of trace amounts of species-specific DNA fragments sampled in the field. Given the sensitivity of eDNA sampling methods, there is strong evidence that these techniques are effective at detecting species of conservation concern (e.g., Ficetola et al, 2008;Wilcox et al, 2016).…”

Signal from the noise: model‐based interpretation of variable correspondence between active and passive samplers

“…In the Everglades, drift fence data produced a different picture of non-native relative abundance and occupancy than throw traps, including detecting four non-native species inside WCA that were undetected by throw traps. However, we noted unique detections of non-native fishes by both gear types, indicating that use of multiple methods provides the most effective form of monitoring for biological invasions (Hoffman et al 2016).…”