Scholarlink

<p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling is a promising approach for marine biodiversity monitoring, potentially offering a significant adjunct to traditional observational methods. This study evaluated eDNA as a marine biomonitoring tool for fish and marine mammal detection. Here we assess the overall utility of passive and active eDNA sampling methods, and the benefits and disadvantages of both techniques for marine mammals and fishes. Active sampling involved vacuum filtration of 2&#xa0;L of water through a filter membrane, while passive sampling involved the immersion of filters for passive absorption at 1&#xa0;m below the sea surface with deployment durations of 5–60&#xa0;min. In total, 51 samples (23 active and 28 passive) were collected from two embayments in southeastern Australia, both with and without visual confirmation of marine mammals in the area at the time. Using a universal vertebrate primer targeting the mitochondrial 12S ribosomal RNA gene, fish DNA was detected in 28 samples, while marine mammal DNA was found in ten, despite visual confirmation of marine mammals on 30 occasions. Notably, one active sample detected marine mammal DNA without a corresponding sighting, illustrating an instance where eDNA sampling detected a marine mammal species that would have been overlooked by traditional monitoring. No single passive submersion time was optimal for detecting fishes or marine mammals. Although the passive method proved to be the more cost-effective approach, active sampling yielded more detections and was quicker to conduct in the field. This study extended the application of eDNA sampling for marine biomonitoring and identified areas for improvement.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluating eDNA as a marine biomonitoring tool for fishes and marine mammals: the utility of active versus passive sampling

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月10日

查看全文
  • Jemima Beddoe,
  • Jeff Shimeta,
  • Kate Robb

摘要

Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling is a promising approach for marine biodiversity monitoring, potentially offering a significant adjunct to traditional observational methods. This study evaluated eDNA as a marine biomonitoring tool for fish and marine mammal detection. Here we assess the overall utility of passive and active eDNA sampling methods, and the benefits and disadvantages of both techniques for marine mammals and fishes. Active sampling involved vacuum filtration of 2 L of water through a filter membrane, while passive sampling involved the immersion of filters for passive absorption at 1 m below the sea surface with deployment durations of 5–60 min. In total, 51 samples (23 active and 28 passive) were collected from two embayments in southeastern Australia, both with and without visual confirmation of marine mammals in the area at the time. Using a universal vertebrate primer targeting the mitochondrial 12S ribosomal RNA gene, fish DNA was detected in 28 samples, while marine mammal DNA was found in ten, despite visual confirmation of marine mammals on 30 occasions. Notably, one active sample detected marine mammal DNA without a corresponding sighting, illustrating an instance where eDNA sampling detected a marine mammal species that would have been overlooked by traditional monitoring. No single passive submersion time was optimal for detecting fishes or marine mammals. Although the passive method proved to be the more cost-effective approach, active sampling yielded more detections and was quicker to conduct in the field. This study extended the application of eDNA sampling for marine biomonitoring and identified areas for improvement.