Active eDNA Is More Cost‐Effective Than Fyke Nets or Passive eDNA Collection When Monitoring the Invasion of an Alien Freshwater Fish

ABSTRACT Monitoring alien species is critical to their management. However, early detection of invading alien freshwater fish can be challenging due to the difficulty of observing fish in low abundance. Environmental DNA (eDNA) has emerged as a new and potentially more sensitive method for sampling invasive species as compared to conventional methods, but the comparative financial cost is not often assessed. Adoption of eDNA by managers requires studies that showcase its cost‐effectiveness relative to conventional approaches. Here we use eDNA to assist in the management of an aggressive alien fish, the pearl cichlid ( Geophagus brasiliensis ), that is invading an urban river in south‐western Australia. We applied an occupancy model to survey data collected 6 years apart (2015, 2021) to assess how the species' distribution had changed and to evaluate whether an instream barrier had the potential to limit upstream invasion. To understand the effectiveness of eDNA, we used our model to quantify the relative efficiency (capture probability) of two eDNA sampling methods (active eDNA and passive eDNA) and fyke netting, as well as the number of replicate samples required per site to deliver >95% detection. We coupled the number of replicates needed with the cost per replicate to determine the cost‐efficiency of each method. We found that G. brasiliensis abundance was higher in downstream reaches in both survey years, and there was no evidence that its distribution had changed through time. However, G. brasiliensis was present above the instream barrier. Active eDNA sampling was considerably better at detecting G. brasiliensis than the other methods, making it the most cost‐effective method. Fyke nets came in a close second, and passive eDNA was a very distant third. Our results directly inform management in the study river and broadly highlight the cost‐effectiveness of active eDNA as a freshwater biosecurity tool.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental DNA
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.70010
Citations
13
Primary Topic
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.97

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Active eDNA Is More Cost‐Effective Than Fyke Nets or Passive eDNA Collection When Monitoring the Invasion of an Alien Freshwater Fish

Deirdre Bridget Gleeson, Josephine Hyde, Daniel C. Gwinn, Leah Beesley et al.
13 citations
Environmental DNA
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
5.97
article

Active eDNA Is More Cost‐Effective Than Fyke Nets or Passive eDNA Collection When Monitoring the Invasion of an Alien Freshwater Fish

Deirdre Bridget Gleeson, Josephine Hyde, Daniel C. Gwinn, Leah Beesley, Michael M. Douglas, Lenore Morris, Emma R. Stevens, Suzanne P. Thompson
article en
13 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Monitoring alien species is critical to their management. However, early detection of invading alien freshwater fish can be challenging due to the difficulty of observing fish in low abundance. Environmental DNA (eDNA) has emerged as a new and potentially more sensitive method for sampling invasive species as compared to conventional methods, but the comparative financial cost is not often assessed. Adoption of eDNA by managers requires studies that showcase its cost‐effectiveness relative to conventional approaches. Here we use eDNA to assist in the management of an aggressive alien fish, the pearl cichlid ( Geophagus brasiliensis ), that is invading an urban river in south‐western Australia. We applied an occupancy model to survey data collected 6 years apart (2015, 2021) to assess how the species' distribution had changed and to evaluate whether an instream barrier had the potential to limit upstream invasion. To understand the effectiveness of eDNA, we used our model to quantify the relative efficiency (capture probability) of two eDNA sampling methods (active eDNA and passive eDNA) and fyke netting, as well as the number of replicate samples required per site to deliver >95% detection. We coupled the number of replicates needed with the cost per replicate to determine the cost‐efficiency of each method. We found that G. brasiliensis abundance was higher in downstream reaches in both survey years, and there was no evidence that its distribution had changed through time. However, G. brasiliensis was present above the instream barrier. Active eDNA sampling was considerably better at detecting G. brasiliensis than the other methods, making it the most cost‐effective method. Fyke nets came in a close second, and passive eDNA was a very distant third. Our results directly inform management in the study river and broadly highlight the cost‐effectiveness of active eDNA as a freshwater biosecurity tool.

Environmental DNAVol. 6(5)
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (US), Oregon State University (US), The University of Western Australia (AU), Australia Bioinformatics Resource (AU)
Australian Government
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
5.97
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.