|Appears in Collections:||Aquaculture Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Searching for a signal: Environmental DNA (eDNA) for the detection of invasive signal crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana, 1852) (Forthcoming/Available Online)|
|Citation:||Harper K, Anucha P, Turnbull J, Bean C & Leaver M (2018) Searching for a signal: Environmental DNA (eDNA) for the detection of invasive signal crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana, 1852) (Forthcoming/Available Online), Management of Biological Invasions.|
|Abstract:||Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a rapid, non-invasive method for species detection and distribution using DNA deposited in the environment by target organisms. eDNA has become a recognised and powerful tool for detecting invasive species in a broad range of aquatic ecosystems. We examined the use of eDNA as a tool for detecting the invasive American signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in Scotland. Species-specific TaqMan probe and primers were designed for P. leniusculus and a robust quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay and DNA extraction protocol were developed. We investigated the detection capability for P. leniusculus from water samples in a controlled laboratory experiment and determined whether crayfish density (low = 1 crayfish 5.5 L -1 or high = 3 crayfish 5.5 L-1) or length of time in tanks (samples taken at 1, 3 and 7 days) influenced DNA detectability. Additionally, the persistence of DNA was investigated after P. leniusculus removal (samples taken at 1, 3 and 7 days post removal). P. leniusculus DNA was consistently detected during the entire 7-day period and higher density tanks yielded stronger positive results with lower Ct values. After removal of P. leniusculus, there was a rapid and continuous decrease in the detectability of DNA. P. leniusculus DNA could only be detected in high density tanks by the end of the 7-day period, while DNA was no longer detectable in low density tanks after 72 hours. Preliminary field experiments sampled water from three sites in winter and five sites in summer. P. leniusculus was known to be present at two of these sites. P. leniusculus was not detected at any site in winter. However, in summer, positive signals were observed at sites with known P. leniusculus, and at sites where P. leniusculus was believed to be present anecdotally, but not confirmed. All sites where crayfish were believed to be absent were negative for eDNA. Therefore, eDNA represents a promising technique to detect and monitor invasive P. leniusculus, although the presence of detectable amounts of eDNA may be season and location dependent, even where invasive crayfish are known to be present.|
|Rights:||© 2018 The Author(s). Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.|
|MBI_2018_Harper_etal_correctedproof.pdf||389.13 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.