Passive eDNA sampling facilitates biodiversity monitoring and rare species detection

• Published in: Environment international Vol. 187; p. 108706
• Main Authors: Chen, Xiaoyu, Li, Sheng, Zhao, Jindong, Yao, Meng
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier Ltd 01.05.2024; Elsevier
• Subjects: Agglomerative clustering; Animals; Biodiversity; China; DNA adsorption; DNA Barcoding, Taxonomic - methods; DNA, Environmental - analysis; eDNA recovery; Environmental Monitoring - methods; Fishes - genetics; Neophocaena asiaeorientalis; Occupancy model; Passive eDNA collection; Porpoises - genetics; Rivers - chemistry; China; DNA adsorption; Occupancy model; Passive eDNA collection; eDNA recovery; Neophocaena asiaeorientalis; Agglomerative clustering
• ISSN: 0160-4120; 1873-6750
• DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108706

[Display omitted] •Filtration-based eDNA sampling has many drawbacks.•Passive eDNA samplers were tested in biodiverse natural waters.•The two sampling methods yielded comparable fish biodiversity.•Passive samplers were superior in capturing a rare species.•Passive eDNA samplers show strong potential for eDNA biomonitoring. Environmental DNA (eDNA) technology has revolutionized biomonitoring, but challenges remain regarding water sample processing. The passive eDNA sampler (PEDS) represents a viable alternative to active, water filtration-based eDNA enrichment methods, but the effectiveness of PEDS for surveying biodiverse and complex natural water bodies is unknown. Here, we collected eDNA using filtration and glass fiber filter-based PEDS (submerged in water for 1 d) from 27 sites along the final reach of the Yangtze River and the coast of the Yellow Sea, followed by eDNA metabarcoding analysis of fish biodiversity and quantitative PCR (qPCR) for a critically endangered aquatic mammal, the Yangtze finless porpoise. We ultimately detected 98 fish species via eDNA metabarcoding. Both eDNA sampling methods captured comparable local species richness and revealed largely similar spatial variation in fish assemblages and community partitions between the river and sea sites. Notably, the Yangtze finless porpoise was detected only in the metabarcoding of eDNA collected by PEDS at five sites. Also, species-specific qPCR revealed that the PEDS captured porpoise eDNA at more sites (7 vs. 2), in greater quantities, and with a higher detection probability (0.803 vs. 0.407) than did filtration. Our results demonstrate the capacity of PEDS for surveying fish biodiversity, and support that continuous eDNA collection by PEDS can be more effective than instantaneous water sampling at capturing low abundance and ephemeral species in natural waters. Thus, the PEDS approach can facilitate more efficient and convenient eDNA-based biodiversity surveillance and rare species detection.