English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Environmental DNA (eDNA) has improved detection probabilities of aquatic invasive species but lab-based analytical platforms for eDNA analyses slow opportunities for rapid response. Effective approaches that address this analytical bottleneck and improve capacity for rapid response are urgently needed. We tested the sensitivity of a portable, field-based eDNA platform relative to widely used lab-based eDNA approaches for detecting invasive northern pike (Esox lucius) in eight lakes on Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula. The portable, field-based platform takes ~ 1 hr from sample collection to final results and uses a field-based DNA extraction kit, a shelf-stable assay, and a portable real-time PCR thermocycler. Lab-based approaches take days to weeks to months for final results and use lab-based DNA extraction kits, lab-bound assays, and benchtop real-time thermocyclers. We found that the portable, field-based approach was less sensitive than lab-based approaches and was more prone to inhibition, thus increasing potential for false-negatives. Until sensitivity and inhibition issues can be resolved, this portable, field-based approach is best viewed as a complement to rather than a replacement of standard eDNA lab-based approaches.

Tradeoffs of a portable, field-based environmental DNA platform for detecting invasive northern pike (Esox lucius) in Alaska