Premium
Distance, flow and PCR inhibition: e DNA dynamics in two headwater streams
Author(s) -
Jane Stephen F.,
Wilcox Taylor M.,
McKelvey Kevin S.,
Young Michael K.,
Schwartz Michael K.,
Lowe Winsor H.,
Letcher Benjamin H.,
Whiteley Andrew R.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
molecular ecology resources
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.96
H-Index - 136
eISSN - 1755-0998
pISSN - 1755-098X
DOI - 10.1111/1755-0998.12285
Subject(s) - environmental dna , streams , biology , dna , river ecosystem , biomass (ecology) , ecology , ecosystem , genetics , biodiversity , computer network , computer science
Environmental DNA (e DNA ) detection has emerged as a powerful tool for monitoring aquatic organisms, but much remains unknown about the dynamics of aquatic e DNA over a range of environmental conditions. DNA concentrations in streams and rivers will depend not only on the equilibrium between DNA entering the water and DNA leaving the system through degradation, but also on downstream transport. To improve understanding of the dynamics of e DNA concentration in lotic systems, we introduced caged trout into two fishless headwater streams and took e DNA samples at evenly spaced downstream intervals. This was repeated 18 times from mid‐summer through autumn, over flows ranging from approximately 1–96 L/s. We used quantitative PCR to relate DNA copy number to distance from source. We found that regardless of flow, there were detectable levels of DNA at 239.5 m. The main effect of flow on e DNA counts was in opposite directions in the two streams. At the lowest flows, e DNA counts were highest close to the source and quickly trailed off over distance. At the highest flows, DNA counts were relatively low both near and far from the source. Biomass was positively related to e DNA copy number in both streams. A combination of cell settling, turbulence and dilution effects is probably responsible for our observations. Additionally, during high leaf deposition periods, the presence of inhibitors resulted in no amplification for high copy number samples in the absence of an inhibition‐releasing strategy, demonstrating the necessity to carefully consider inhibition in e DNA analysis.