IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0288282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and validation of an environmental DNA assay to detect federally threatened groundwater salamanders in central Texas

Author

Listed:
  • Zachary C Adcock
  • Michelle E Adcock
  • Michael R J Forstner

Abstract

The molecular detection of DNA fragments that are shed into the environment (eDNA) has become an increasingly applied tool used to inventory biological communities and to perform targeted species surveys. This method is particularly useful in habitats where it is difficult or not practical to visually detect or trap the target organisms. Central Texas Eurycea salamanders inhabit both surface and subterranean aquatic environments. Subterranean surveys are challenging or infeasible, and the detection of salamander eDNA in water samples is an appealing survey technique for these situations. Here, we develop and validate an eDNA assay using quantitative PCR for E. chisholmensis, E. naufragia, and E. tonkawae. These three species are federally threatened and constitute the Septentriomolge clade that occurs in the northern segment of the Edwards Aquifer. First, we validated the specificity of the assay in silico and with DNA extracted from tissue samples of both target Septentriomolge and non-target amphibians that overlap in distribution. Then, we evaluated the sensitivity of the assay in two controls, one with salamander-positive water and one at field sites known to be occupied by Septentriomolge. For the salamander-positive control, the estimated probability of eDNA occurrence (ψ) was 0.981 (SE = 0.019), and the estimated probability of detecting eDNA in a qPCR replicate (p) was 0.981 (SE = 0.011). For the field control, the estimated probability of eDNA occurring at a site (ψ) was 0.938 (95% CRI: 0.714–0.998). The estimated probability of collecting eDNA in a water sample (θ) was positively correlated with salamander relative density and ranged from 0.371 (95% CRI: 0.201–0.561) to 0.999 (95% CRI: 0.850– > 0.999) among sampled sites. Therefore, sites with low salamander density require more water samples for eDNA evaluation, and we determined that our site with the lowest estimated θ would require seven water samples for the cumulative collection probability to exceed 0.95. The estimated probability of detecting eDNA in a qPCR replicate (p) was 0.882 (95% CRI: 0.807–0.936), and our assay required two qPCR replicates for the cumulative detection probability to exceed 0.95. In complementary visual encounter surveys, the estimated probability of salamanders occurring at a known-occupied site was 0.905 (SE = 0.096), and the estimated probability of detecting salamanders in a visual encounter survey was 0.925 (SE = 0.052). We additionally discuss future research needed to refine this method and understand its limitations before practical application and incorporation into formal survey protocols for these taxa.

Suggested Citation

  • Zachary C Adcock & Michelle E Adcock & Michael R J Forstner, 2023. "Development and validation of an environmental DNA assay to detect federally threatened groundwater salamanders in central Texas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-21, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0288282
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288282
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288282&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0288282?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fiske, Ian & Chandler, Richard, 2011. "unmarked: An R Package for Fitting Hierarchical Models of Wildlife Occurrence and Abundance," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 43(i10).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Linda M. Haines, 2016. "A Note on the Royle–Nichols Model for Repeated Detection–Nondetection Data," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 21(3), pages 588-598, September.
    2. Tracey N Johnson & Kristen Nasman & Zachary P Wallace & Lucretia E Olson & John R Squires & Ryan M Nielson & Patricia L Kennedy, 2019. "Survey design for broad-scale, territory-based occupancy monitoring of a raptor: Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) as a case study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, March.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0094406 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Johnston, Alison & Moran, Nick & Musgrove, Andy & Fink, Daniel & Baillie, Stephen R., 2020. "Estimating species distributions from spatially biased citizen science data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 422(C).
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0228980 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Zhiyuan Lv & Jun Yang & Ben Wielstra & Jie Wei & Fei Xu & Yali Si, 2019. "Prioritizing Green Spaces for Biodiversity Conservation in Beijing Based on Habitat Network Connectivity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, April.
    7. Jha, Ashish & J, Praveen & Nameer, P.O., 2022. "Contrasting occupancy models with presence-only models: Does accounting for detection lead to better predictions?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).
    8. Karavarsamis, N. & Huggins, R.M., 2019. "Two-stage approaches to the analysis of occupancy data II. The heterogeneous model and conditional likelihood," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 195-207.
    9. Benjamin Juan Padilla & Chris Sutherland, 2021. "Defining dual-axis landscape gradients of human influence for studying ecological processes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-17, November.
    10. repec:plo:pone00:0217543 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Ferreira, Guilherme Braga, 2018. "When the blanket is too short: Potential negative impacts of expanding indigenous land over a national park in a high priority area for conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 359-364.
    12. Mauriel Rodriguez Curras & Emiliano Donadío & Arthur D Middleton & Jonathan N Pauli, 2021. "Perceived risk structures the space use of competing carnivores," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(6), pages 1380-1390.
    13. Duarte, Adam & Adams, Michael J. & Peterson, James T., 2018. "Fitting N-mixture models to count data with unmodeled heterogeneity: Bias, diagnostics, and alternative approaches," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 374(C), pages 51-59.
    14. Kowalewski, Lucas K. & Chizinski, Christopher J. & Powell, Larkin A. & Pope, Kevin L. & Pegg, Mark A., 2015. "Accuracy or precision: Implications of sample design and methodology on abundance estimation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 316(C), pages 185-190.
    15. Matthew R. P. Parker & Laura L. E. Cowen & Jiguo Cao & Lloyd T. Elliott, 2023. "Computational Efficiency and Precision for Replicated-Count and Batch-Marked Hidden Population Models," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 28(1), pages 43-58, March.
    16. Linda M. Haines, 2020. "Multinomial N‐mixture models for removal sampling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 540-548, June.
    17. Edgar Santos‐Fernandez & Julie Vercelloni & Aiden Price & Grace Heron & Bryce Christensen & Erin E. Peterson & Kerrie Mengersen, 2024. "Increasing Trust in New Data Sources: Crowdsourcing Image Classification for Ecology," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 92(1), pages 43-61, April.
    18. Krista L. Noe & Christopher T. Rota & Mack W. Frantz & James T. Anderson, 2022. "Restored and Natural Wetland Small Mammal Communities in West Virginia, USA," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
    19. Alex Diana & Emily Beth Dennis & Eleni Matechou & Byron John Treharne Morgan, 2023. "Fast Bayesian inference for large occupancy datasets," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 2503-2515, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0288282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.