Figure 1: California funding and support for eDNA monitoring will sustain an analytical program that can inform management and conservation decisions. Improved primary data on the distribution of these important classifications of species will have positive impacts on biodiversity and development within the state. (Ota et. al. 2020)
Journal of Science Policy & Governance | Volume 17, Issue 01 | September 30, 2020

Policy Memo: ​Environmental DNA Monitoring: Better Tracking of Endangered, Rare, Cryptic, and Invasive Species

William M. Ota (1,2), Caitlyn Hall (3,4) , John Malloy (3,5) , Morgan A. Clark (6)
  1. University of California Riverside, Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology Department, Riverside, CA
  2. University of California Riverside, Center for Science to Policy, Riverside, CA
  3. Arizona State University, Arizona Science Policy Network, Tempe, AZ
  4. Arizona State University, Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Tempe, AZ
  5. Arizona State University, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Tempe, AZ
  6. Colton High School, Science Department, Colton, CA
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG170117
Keywords: biodiversity; conservation; California; endangered species; invasive species
Executive Summary: As the global number of endangered, rare, and invasive species continues to increase, legally mandated efforts to monitor species’ ranges and abundances have grown exponentially. Human population growth is affecting an increasing number of species that need to be monitored, resulting in difficulties providing necessary data on the abundances, ranges, and movement of these species (Kelly 2014). We currently lack practical monitoring techniques for remote, hard-to-access habitats and species with low population counts, which makes it difficult to make informed management decisions (Kelly et al. 2014). Biologists use a variety of comprehensive field- and labor-based monitoring techniques including mark-recapture studies, depletion surveys, and tracking surveys. Environmental DNA (eDNA) is the genetic material shed by every organism into its surrounding environment, which can then be collected from air, soil, or water and analyzed to assess the composition of species present at a site (Thomsen and Willerslev 2015). eDNA monitoring is a tool that does not require the same man-hours that other techniques require. This allows eDNA to be deployed for biomonitoring, natural resource management, and decision making in ways traditional techniques cannot (Biggs et al. 2015; Kelly et al. 2014). Past use of eDNA in programs, including CaleDNA and the Aquatic eDNA atlas project, demonstrated that eDNA is currently a viable monitoring tool for endangered, rare, cryptic, and invasive species. In 2020, the United States Department of the Interior’s National Invasive Species Council Work Plan recognized the potential of eDNA and prioritized its exploration for the first time (United States Department of the Interior, 2020). We believe developing permanent funding sources or amending AB 2470 to include funds for natural resource managers to implement eDNA monitoring programs and information databases is necessary to continue to support societal growth and biodiversity in California. An eDNA monitoring program will allow natural resource managers to better inform land development, conservation, and environmental management decision-making in California.

-Read the full article through download.-
Download PDF

References

  1. Biggs, J., Ewald, N., Valentini, A., Gaboriaud, C., Dejean, T.,  Griffiths, R. A., Foster, J., et al. 2015. “Using EDNA to Develop a National Citizen Science-Based Monitoring Programme for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus Cristatus).” Biological Conservation 183: 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.029.
  2. Boussarie, G., Bakker, J., Wangensteen, O. S., Mariani, S. Bonnin, L., Juhel, J. B., Kiszka, J. J. et al. 2018. “Environmental DNA Illuminates the Dark Diversity of Sharks.” Science Advances 4 (5): eaap9661. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aap9661.
  3. Bucciarelli, G. M., Suh, D., Lamb, A. D., Roberts, D., Sharpton, Shaffer, H. B., Fisher, R. N., & Kats. L. B. 2019. “Assessing Effects of Non-Native Crayfish on Mosquito Survival.” Conservation Biology 33 (1): 122–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13198.
  4. “California’s Invaders.” n.d. Accessed July 23, 2020. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives/Species
  5. Closek, C. J., Jarrod A. S., Starks, H. A., Schroeder, I. D.,  Andruszkiewicz, E. A,. Sakuma, K. M. Bograd, S. J., Hazen, E. L. Field, J. C. & Boehm. A. B. 2019. “Marine Vertebrate Biodiversity and Distribution Within the Central California Current Using Environmental DNA (EDNA) Metabarcoding and Ecosystem Surveys.” Frontiers in Marine Science 6 (December): 732. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00732.
  6. Cristescu, M. E., and Hebert, P.D.N. 2018. “Uses and Misuses of Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Science and Conservation.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 49 (1): 209–30. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062306.
  7. Dejean, T., Valentini, A., Christian M., Pierre T., Bellemain, E,, & Claude M. 2012. “Improved Detection of an Alien Invasive Species through Environmental DNA Barcoding: The Example of the American Bullfrog Lithobates Catesbeianus.” Journal of Applied Ecology 49 (4): 953–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02171.x.
  8. Department of the Interior, Us. 2020. “U.S. Department of the Interior 2019/2020 Annual Performance Plan & 2018 Report." https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/doi_final_appr_2019-2020.pdf
  9. Elkind, E., Hecht, S. B., Selmi,  D. P., Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Janet Smith-Heimer, Mba BAE President Jessica Hitchcock, MCP BAE Vice President Paige Roosa, MCP BAE Associate Chelsea Guerrero, and MCP BAE Associate. 2016. “CEQA in the 21st Century." www.bae1.comwww.mash-production.com.
  10. Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P. J., McDonald, R. I., Parnell, S., et al. 2013. “Stewardship of the Biosphere in the Urban Era.” In Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities: A Global Assessment, 719–46. Springer Netherlands.
  11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_33.
  12. Garlapati, D., Charankumar, B., Ramu, K., Madeswaran, P., and Murthy, M. V. R. 2019. “A Review on the Applications and Recent Advances in Environmental DNA (EDNA) Metagenomics.” Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-019-09501-4.
  13. Hauser, C. E., & McCarthy, M. A. 2009. “Streamlining ‘Search and Destroy’: Cost-Effective Surveillance for Invasive Species Management.” Ecology Letters 12 (7): 683–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01323.x.
  14. Heather, J. M., and Chain, B. 2016. “The Sequence of Sequencers: The History of Sequencing DNA.” Genomics. Academic Press Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2015.11.003.
  15. Jerde, C. L., Andrew R. M., Chadderton, L. P., and Lodge, D. M., 2011. “‘Sight-Unseen’ Detection of Rare Aquatic Species Using Environmental DNA.” Conservation Letters 4 (2): 150–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00158.x.
  16. Yinqiu, J., Ashton, L., Pedley, S. M., Edwards, D. P., Tang, Y.,  Nakamura, A., Kitching, R., et al. 2013. “Reliable, Verifiable and Efficient Monitoring of Biodiversity via Metabarcoding.” Ecology Letters 16 (10): 1245–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12162.
  17. Kahler, J. S., Liu, R.W., Newcomb, T, J., Herbst, S, and Gore, M. L. 2020. “Public Risk Perceptions Associated with Asian Carp Introductionand Corresponding Response Actions.” Management of Biological Invasions 11 (1): 80–95. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2020.11.1.06.
  18. Kamenova, S, T J Bartley, D Bohan, J R Boutain, R I Colautti, I Domaizon, C Fontaine, et al. n.d. “Invasions Toolkit: Current Methods for Tracking the Spread and Impact of Invasive Species.” Accessed July 23, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2016.10.009.
  19. Kelly, R. P. 2014. “Will More, Better, Cheaper, and Faster Monitoring Improve Environmental Management?” SSRN Electronic Journal, 1111–47. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2408550.
  20. Kelly, R. P., Port J. A., Yamahara, K. M., Martone, R. G., Lowell, N., Thomsen, P. F., Mach, M. E. et al. 2014. “Harnessing DNA to Improve Environmental Management.” Science 344 (6191): 1455–56. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251156.
  21. “Quagga and Zebra Mussels.” n.d. Accessed July 23, 2020. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives/Quagga-Mussels.
  22. Rees, H. C., Maddison, B. C., Middleditch, D. J., Patmore J. R.M. and Gough, K. C., 2014. “The Detection of Aquatic Animal Species Using Environmental DNA - a Review of EDNA as a Survey Tool in Ecology.” Journal of Applied Ecology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12306.
  23. Sepulveda, A. J., Schmidt, C., Amberg, J., Hutchins, P., Stratton, C., Mebane, C., Laramie, M. B., and Pilliod. D. S. 2019. “Adding Invasive Species Biosurveillance to the U.S. Geological Survey Streamgage Network.” Ecosphere 10 (8). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2843.
  24. Spear, S. F., Groves, J. D., Williams, L.  A., and Waits, L. P. 2015. “Using Environmental DNA Methods to Improve Detectability in a Hellbender (Cryptobranchus Alleganiensis) Monitoring Program.” Biological Conservation 183: 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.016.
  25. Stern, C. V., Upton, H. F., & Brougher, C. 2014. “Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region Specialist in Natural Resources Policy.”
  26.  www.crs.gov.
  27. Thomsen, P. F., & Willerslev, E. 2015. “Environmental DNA - An Emerging Tool in Conservation for Monitoring Past and Present Biodiversity.” Biological Conservation. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019.
  28. Ventura, L. De, Kopp, K., Seppälä, K., & Jokela, J. 2017. “Tracing the Quagga Mussel Invasion along the Rhine River System Using EDNA Markers: Early Detection and Surveillance of Invasive Zebra and Quagga Mussels.” Management of Biological Invasions 8 (1): 101–12. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2017.8.1.10.
  29. Wong, W. H., & Gerstenberger, S. L. 2011. “Quagga Mussels in the Western United States: Monitoring and Management.” Aquatic Invasions 6 (2): 125–29. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2011.6.2.01.
William Ota (he/him) is the current Government Relations Chair and former Executive Chair of the UC Riverside Center for Science to Policy (S2P).  As a PhD student in the department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology at UC Riverside he studies how the effects of wastewater discharge are altering the lives of native species in urban rivers. This research will help us protect native species and ecosystems and preserve them for future generations. In order for his research to have broad impacts he collaborates with local water districts, conservation districts, and United States Geological Surveys. In his free time William enjoys SCUBA, houseplant propagation, and building terrariums. Email: wota001@ucr.edu
 
Caitlyn Hall (she/her/they/them) is a founding member of the Arizona Science Policy Network and a PhD student in Environmental Engineering at Arizona State University. Her current research promotes climate change and natural hazard resilience in communities using microbes to reduce damage from earthquake-induced liquefaction. She works with industry, community, and government leaders to develop best-fit technical, policy, and public health solutions to best-address a community’s challenges and values. Her other research has focused on soil and water remediation, and sustainable use of resources for urban and greenhouse crop production and agriculture. For fun, Caitlyn spends her time rock climbing and trail running.
 
John F. Malloy (he/him) is a PhD candidate studying Astrobiology and Complex Systems Science at Arizona State University. He studies the fundamental nature and definition of life, both on Earth and on other planets, through exploring the evolution of life and life-like systems. He is working to predict future evolutionary steps and create a universal definition of evolution. He is also a member of the Arizona Science Policy Network, where he works to advance science-based policy measures in Arizona. He enjoys training for and competing in ultramarathons across the American Southwest.
 
Morgan Clark (she/her) is a Biology Teacher at Colton High School. As an educator she aims to equip her students with science communication skills so that they may advocate for the preservation of ecosystems in their communities. Before she accepted her current role, she was a Laboratory Manager and Research Assistant at Pepperdine University where she published work on the effects of climate change on California newts. In her free time, she enjoys collecting field guides and creating digital art.
 
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance and support of Kevan Yamahara from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Doug Brown from the UC Riverside Center for Science to Policy, and Susan Hackwood from the UC Riverside Center for Science to Policy.
DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications, additional article commentaries and related events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.