Premium
Environmental DNA as a monitoring tool for the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.): a substitute for classical monitoring approaches?
Author(s) -
Stoeckle Bernhard C.,
Kuehn Ralph,
Geist Juergen
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
aquatic conservation: marine and freshwater ecosystems
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.95
H-Index - 77
eISSN - 1099-0755
pISSN - 1052-7613
DOI - 10.1002/aqc.2611
Subject(s) - margaritifera , environmental dna , endangered species , mussel , population , unionidae , pearl , biology , fishery , habitat , ecology , bivalvia , biodiversity , geography , mollusca , demography , archaeology , sociology
Abstract Knowledge of species distribution is of utmost importance for conservation and management of endangered freshwater mussels. Conventional monitoring approaches are often time consuming and costly. The use of environmental DNA (eDNA) is a relatively new approach and considered as an effective tool to detect the presence of target species in aquatic environments. The aim of this study was to establish a nested PCR system to detect eDNA of Margaritifera margaritifera and to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of eDNA in mussel surveys compared with classical monitoring. DNA of M. margaritifera was detected in 2 L water samples collected directly downstream (25 m) from pearl mussel populations (population size from 800–20 000), with an internal‐nested PCR approach greatly increasing the detection sensitivity (down to 10 fg target DNA). eDNA detection at greater distances downstream (500 and 1 000 m) of these populations failed, possibly due to DNA degradation or dilution processes. eDNA was also detected downstream of an extinct population, most likely resulting from overlooked mussels or the release of DNA from dead shells. The eDNA approach proposed herein may be helpful in initial screening of streams that are otherwise difficult to monitor, or in the detection of buried juvenile mussels without disturbing their habitat. However, it cannot replace monitoring of population demography, and of other important information for conservation, and should thus only be seen as a supplementary tool. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.