Comparison of American Fisheries Society (AFS) Standard Fish Sampling Techniques and Environmental DNA for Characterizing Fish Communities in a Large Reservoir

Comparison of American Fisheries Society (AFS) Standard Fish Sampling Techniques and Environmental DNA for Characterizing Fish Communities in a Large Reservoir

Recently, methods involving examination of environmental DNA (eDNA) have shown promise for characterizing fish species presence and distribution in waterbodies. We evaluated the use of eDNA for standard fish monitoring surveys in a large reservoir. Specifically, we compared the presence, relative ab...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:North American journal of fisheries management Vol. 37; no. 5; pp. 1010 - 1027
Main Authors: Perez, Christina R., Bonar, Scott A., Amberg, Jon J., Ladell, Bridget, Rees, Chris, Stewart, William T., Gill, Curtis J., Cantrell, Chris, Robinson, Anthony T.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Bethesda Taylor & Francis 01-10-2017
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Subjects:
Abundance
Bass
Biomass
Boats
Catch composition
Deoxyribonucleic acid
Detection
DNA
DNA sequences
DNA sequencing
Electric fishing
Environmental DNA
Environmental monitoring
Fish
Fisheries
Fishing nets
Freshwater fishes
Lakes
Measurement methods
Polls & surveys
Relative abundance
Reservoirs
Sampling
Sampling methods
Spatial distribution
Species
Spring
Surveys
Water analysis
Water sampling
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Recently, methods involving examination of environmental DNA (eDNA) have shown promise for characterizing fish species presence and distribution in waterbodies. We evaluated the use of eDNA for standard fish monitoring surveys in a large reservoir. Specifically, we compared the presence, relative abundance, biomass, and relative percent composition of Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides and Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum measured through eDNA methods and established American Fisheries Society standard sampling methods for Theodore Roosevelt Lake, Arizona. Catches at electrofishing and gillnetting sites were compared with eDNA water samples at sites, within spatial strata, and over the entire reservoir. Gizzard Shad were detected at a higher percentage of sites with eDNA methods than with boat electrofishing in both spring and fall. In contrast, spring and fall gillnetting detected Gizzard Shad at more sites than eDNA. Boat electrofishing and gillnetting detected Largemouth Bass at more sites than eDNA; the exception was fall gillnetting, for which the number of sites of Largemouth Bass detection was equal to that for eDNA. We observed no relationship between relative abundance and biomass of Largemouth Bass and Gizzard Shad measured by established methods and eDNA copies at individual sites or lake sections. Reservoirwide catch composition for Largemouth Bass and Gizzard Shad (numbers and total weight [g] of fish) as determined through a combination of gear types (boat electrofishing plus gillnetting) was similar to the proportion of total eDNA copies from each species in spring and fall field sampling. However, no similarity existed between proportions of fish caught via spring and fall boat electrofishing and the proportion of total eDNA copies from each species. Our study suggests that eDNA field sampling protocols, filtration, DNA extraction, primer design, and DNA sequencing methods need further refinement and testing before incorporation into standard fish sampling surveys. Received October 26, 2016; accepted June 9, 2017Published online August 10, 2017
Bibliography:Present address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Fishery Center, Region 5, Post Office Box 75, 227 Washington Avenue, Lamar, Pennsylvania 16848, USA.
Present address: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 6150 West Thunderbird Road, Glendale, Arizona 85306, USA.
ISSN:0275-5947
1548-8675
DOI:10.1080/02755947.2017.1342721