Testing active vs passive water eDNA sampling
This study tested passive eDNA sampling using submerged DNA traps with three low-cost collection materials, cellulose nitrate, glass fiber, and coffee filters, in a freshwater pond, benchmarking them against simultaneous active filtration. Using multiplex PCR across macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, and vertebrates, passive sampling proved equally reliable for detecting macrophytes and vertebrates, with no significant differences in detection rates or ASV counts. Performance was limited for macroinvertebrates in both methods, likely due to primer bias. As no significant differences were found between collection materials, the use of inexpensive coffee filters is viable. Passive DNA traps offer a scalable, cost- and time-efficient alternative for large-scale freshwater biodiversity monitoring.
This study tested passive eDNA sampling using submerged DNA traps with three low-cost collection materials, cellulose nitrate, glass fiber, and coffee filters, in a freshwater pond, benchmarking them against simultaneous active filtration. Using multiplex PCR across macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, and vertebrates, passive sampling proved equally reliable for detecting macrophytes and vertebrates, with no significant differences in detection rates or ASV counts. Performance was limited for macroinvertebrates in both methods, likely due to primer bias. As no significant differences were found between collection materials, the use of inexpensive coffee filters is viable. Passive DNA traps offer a scalable, cost- and time-efficient alternative for large-scale freshwater biodiversity monitoring.
Senckenberg Gesellschaft fuer Naturforschung