A quantitative analysis of vertebrate environmental DNA degradation in soil in response to time, UV light, and temperature

被引:4
作者
Guthrie, Austin M. [1 ]
Cooper, Christine E. [2 ]
Bateman, Philip W. [3 ]
van Der Heyde, Mieke [1 ]
Allentoft, Morten E. [4 ,5 ]
Nevill, Paul [1 ]
机构
[1] Curtin Univ, Sch Mol & Life Sci, Trace & Environm DNA TrEnD Lab, MBioMe Mine Site Biomonitoring Using eDNA Res Grp, Perth, WA 6102, Australia
[2] Curtin Univ, Sch Mol & Life Sci, Perth, WA, Australia
[3] Curtin Univ, Sch Mol & Life Sci, Behav Ecol Lab, Perth, WA, Australia
[4] Curtin Univ, Sch Mol & Life Sci, Trace & Environm DNA TrEnD Lab, Perth, WA, Australia
[5] Univ Copenhagen, Lundbeck Fdn GeoGenet Ctr, Globe Inst, Copenhagen, Denmark
来源
ENVIRONMENTAL DNA | 2024年 / 6卷 / 04期
关键词
degradation; environmental DNA; soil; terrestrial; vertebrate; ULTRAVIOLET-RADIATION; ACCUMULATION; PENETRATION; PERSISTENCE; ADEQUATE;
D O I
10.1002/edn3.581
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Environmental DNA (eDNA) degradation influences the effectiveness of eDNA-based biodiversity monitoring, but the factors that determine the rate of decay of eDNA in terrestrial environments are poorly understood. We assessed the persistence of vertebrate eDNA from a mock vertebrate community created with soil from zoo enclosures holding 10 target species from different taxonomic classes (reptiles, birds, and mammals) and of different biomass (little penguin and giraffe). We examined species detection rates resulting from eDNA metabarcoding, as well as relative eDNA concentrations via qPCR, from soil samples over eight time points (0-12 weeks), during exposure to three ambient temperatures (10, 25, and 40 degrees C) and three levels of ultraviolet B (UV-B) radiation (0%, 50%, and 100% intensity). We recorded considerable variation in detectability between species, independent of temperature, and UV-B effects. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) indicated degradation of eDNA over time for all temperature and UV treatments, although it was still possible to detect eDNA from some species after 12 weeks. Degradation rates were lowest for high UV-B treatments, presumably due to UV-B reducing bacterial metabolism. The temperatures investigated did not influence eDNA decay. Our results indicate that eDNA in soil can persist under a range of temperatures and high UV radiation for longer than expected. Sheltered sites with minimal UV-B radiation, which have previously been considered ideal sites for terrestrial eDNA collection, may not be optimal for eDNA persistence in some cases due to microbial decay. A better understanding of eDNA degradation in terrestrial environments is needed to enhance the accuracy of eDNA metabarcoding for surveying terrestrial vertebrate communities. We assessed the persistence of vertebrate eDNA from a mock vertebrate community created with soil from zoo enclosures holding 10 target species from different taxonomic classes (reptiles, birds, and mammals) and of different biomass (little penguin and giraffe). Quantitative polymerase chain reaction indicated degradation of eDNA over time for all temperature and UV treatments, with degradation rates lowest for high UV-B treatments, presumably due to UV-B-reducing bacterial metabolism. Sheltered sites with minimal UV-B radiation, which have previously been considered ideal sites for terrestrial eDNA collection, may not be optimal for eDNA persistence in some cases due to microbial decay, and a better understanding of terrestrial eDNA degradation is needed to improve the accuracy of soil eDNA metabarcoding for surveying of terrestrial vertebrate communities.image
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 66 条
  • [41] Detection of the European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis) by environmental DNA: is eDNA adequate for reptiles?
    Raemy, Matthieu
    Ursenbacher, Sylvain
    [J]. AMPHIBIA-REPTILIA, 2018, 39 (02) : 135 - 143
  • [42] ecoPrimers: inference of new DNA barcode markers from whole genome sequence analysis
    Riaz, Tiayyba
    Shehzad, Wasim
    Viari, Alain
    Pompanon, Francois
    Taberlet, Pierre
    Coissac, Eric
    [J]. NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, 2011, 39 (21) : e145
  • [43] Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: A systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA
    Ruppert, Krista M.
    Kline, Richard J.
    Rahman, Md Saydur
    [J]. GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION, 2019, 17
  • [44] eDNA metabarcoding of log hollow sediments and soils highlights the importance of substrate type, frequency of sampling and animal size, for vertebrate species detection
    Ryan, Ethan
    Bateman, Philip
    Fernandes, Kristen
    van der Heyde, Mieke
    Nevill, Paul
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL DNA, 2022, 4 (04): : 940 - 953
  • [45] Saito T., 2021, Environmental DNA, V3, P850, DOI DOI 10.1002/EDN3.192
  • [46] AdapterRemoval v2: Rapid adapter trimming, identification, and read merging
    Schubert M.
    Lindgreen S.
    Orlando L.
    [J]. BMC Research Notes, 9 (1)
  • [47] Terrestrial mammal surveillance using hybridization capture of environmental DNA from African waterholes
    Seeber, Peter Andreas
    McEwen, Gayle K.
    Loeber, Ulrike
    Foerster, Daniel W.
    East, Marion Linda
    Melzheimer, Joerg
    Greenwood, Alex D.
    [J]. MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES, 2019, 19 (06) : 1486 - 1496
  • [48] Population characteristics of a large whale shark aggregation inferred from seawater environmental DNA
    Sigsgaard, Eva Egelyng
    Nielsen, Ida Broman
    Bach, Steffen Sanvig
    Lorenzen, Eline D.
    Robinson, David Philip
    Knudsen, Steen Wilhelm
    Pedersen, Mikkel Winther
    Al Jaidah, Mohammed
    Orlando, Ludovic
    Willerslev, Eske
    Moller, Peter Rask
    Thomsen, Philip Francis
    [J]. NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2017, 1 (01):
  • [49] Factors governing extracellular DNA degradation dynamics in soil
    Sirois, Sara Hope
    Buckley, Daniel H.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY REPORTS, 2019, 11 (02): : 173 - 184
  • [50] Technological advances in biodiversity monitoring: applicability, opportunities and challenges
    Stephenson, P. J.
    [J]. CURRENT OPINION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, 2020, 45 : 36 - 41