With time and budget constraint putting more pressure on the Arizona Game and Fish Department to produce more reports with less resources. Environmental DNA sampling could be the answer to acquiring population data, faster than traditional sampling methods.
Surveying populations of animals, to observe the status of their populations has been a difficult task for Wildlife Biologists, since the late 1800s. The recent decline of wildlife populations has put more pressure on wildlife managers to determine how it is affecting populations at the local level.
Theoretically, by taking a water sample analyze the DNA fragments from organic matter that has been shed from animals and map out the population that resides there.
These fragments are …show more content…
The fact that there was no correlation with eDNA and fish observed might mean they need to try different PCR techniques.
Scott explains “In looking at Christina Perez’s research she tested eDNA sampling with electrofishing and gill netting techniques at lake Roosevelt. We could not correlate fish caught electrofishing, and gillnetting, with a water sample, that was taken right next to it at each individual site. However we did find a correlation between the proportions of two species of fish caught and detected eDNA.”
One of the major pitfalls with eDNA sampling is that every environment that you sample is going to have different variables. These different variables require novel protocols that will account for these differences in how the eDNA samples are processed.
“There are different methods in the PCR amplification. At one point they take the sample and try to replicate the DNA in the sample. There are studies showing that different PCR methods give different results.” Said Daniel Leavitt, regional wildlife specialist supervisor at the …show more content…
However, there are still kinks that need to be worked out.
“The key to good science, is staying up to date and making sure you’re doing things correctly. There’s nothing better than thinking outside of the box,” Said Dan. “So often you run into people who are doing things and you ask why there doing it and they say that’s how it’s always been done. That’s great for standardization of protocol but could be bad in the long run.
If a standard for eDNA can be produced that reveals consistent results across all boards then maybe it can be used as a tool for wildlife management.
“There is an error when using [eDNA], but it would be really interesting to look at that error rate,” Said Dan. “But whether or not that’s a worthy expenditure of our limited resources for wildlife conservation. I would say it’s not. I would say a lot more research needs to be done. I strongly encourage people to investigate how eDNA can best be applied. I don’t think [eDNA] is an end all be all
Surveying populations of animals, to observe the status of their populations has been a difficult task for Wildlife Biologists, since the late 1800s. The recent decline of wildlife populations has put more pressure on wildlife managers to determine how it is affecting populations at the local level.
Theoretically, by taking a water sample analyze the DNA fragments from organic matter that has been shed from animals and map out the population that resides there.
These fragments are …show more content…
The fact that there was no correlation with eDNA and fish observed might mean they need to try different PCR techniques.
Scott explains “In looking at Christina Perez’s research she tested eDNA sampling with electrofishing and gill netting techniques at lake Roosevelt. We could not correlate fish caught electrofishing, and gillnetting, with a water sample, that was taken right next to it at each individual site. However we did find a correlation between the proportions of two species of fish caught and detected eDNA.”
One of the major pitfalls with eDNA sampling is that every environment that you sample is going to have different variables. These different variables require novel protocols that will account for these differences in how the eDNA samples are processed.
“There are different methods in the PCR amplification. At one point they take the sample and try to replicate the DNA in the sample. There are studies showing that different PCR methods give different results.” Said Daniel Leavitt, regional wildlife specialist supervisor at the …show more content…
However, there are still kinks that need to be worked out.
“The key to good science, is staying up to date and making sure you’re doing things correctly. There’s nothing better than thinking outside of the box,” Said Dan. “So often you run into people who are doing things and you ask why there doing it and they say that’s how it’s always been done. That’s great for standardization of protocol but could be bad in the long run.
If a standard for eDNA can be produced that reveals consistent results across all boards then maybe it can be used as a tool for wildlife management.
“There is an error when using [eDNA], but it would be really interesting to look at that error rate,” Said Dan. “But whether or not that’s a worthy expenditure of our limited resources for wildlife conservation. I would say it’s not. I would say a lot more research needs to be done. I strongly encourage people to investigate how eDNA can best be applied. I don’t think [eDNA] is an end all be all