title: Assessing environmental DNA detection in controlled lentic systems.
abstract: Little consideration has been given to environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling strategies for rare species. The certainty of species detection relies on understanding false positive and false negative error rates. We used artificial ponds together with logistic regression models to assess the detection of African jewelfish eDNA at varying fish densities (0, 0.32, 1.75, and 5.25 fish/m3). Our objectives were to determine the most effective water stratum for eDNA detection, estimate true and false positive eDNA detection rates, and assess the number of water samples necessary to minimize the risk of false negatives. There were 28 eDNA detections in 324, 1-L, water samples collected from four experimental ponds. The best-approximating model indicated that the per-L-sample probability of eDNA detection was 4.86 times more likely for every 2.53 fish/m3 (1 SD) increase in fish density and 1.67 times less likely for every 1.02 C (1 SD) increase in water temperature. The best section of the water column to detect eDNA was the surface and to a lesser extent the bottom. Although no false positives were detected, the estimated likely number of false positives in samples from ponds that contained fish averaged 3.62. At high densities of African jewelfish, 3-5 L of water provided a >95% probability for the presence/absence of its eDNA. Conversely, at moderate and low densities, the number of water samples necessary to achieve a >95% probability of eDNA detection approximated 42-73 and >100 L, respectively. Potential biases associated with incomplete detection of eDNA could be alleviated via formal estimation of eDNA detection probabilities under an occupancy modeling framework; alternatively, the filtration of hundreds of liters of water may be required to achieve a high (e.g., 95%) level of certainty that African jewelfish eDNA will be detected at low densities (i.e., <0.32 fish/m3 or 1.75 g/m3).
authors: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Conservation Genetics Laboratory, Warm Springs, Georgia, United States of America.
authors: Gregory R
authors: GR
authors: Moyer
authors: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Conservation Genetics Laboratory, Warm Springs, Georgia, United States of America; Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, United States of America.
authors: Edgardo
authors: E
authors: Díaz-Ferguson
authors: Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory, University of Florida, Ruskin, Florida, United States of America.
authors: Jeffrey E
authors: JE
authors: Hill
authors: Department of Biology, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee, United States of America.
authors: Colin
authors: C
authors: Shea
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D023681:Cichlids / Q000235:genetics*; D004247:DNA / Q000235:genetics / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D017753:Ecosystem; D014644:Genetic Variation; D061005:Ponds / Q000737:chemistry; D011156:Population Density; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
chemical_list: D004247:DNA