eDNA Metabarcoding Benchmarked towards Conventional Survey Methods in Amphibian Monitoring

A keystone in protection work is accurate and thorough the monitoring of amphibian species, and the currently applied conventional survey methods are invasive, time-consuming, and dependent on expert knowledge. Research suggests that eDNA metabarcoding is a precise and cost-efficient method that could supplement the currently applied methods. The present study assessed the efficiency of conventional survey methods and eDNA metabarcoding in terms of species richness, the average number of detected species per site, the relative frequency of species occurrence, and the similarity of applied methods. The study found eDNA metabarcoding surveys to detect Lissotriton vulgaris (smooth newt), Triturus cristatus (great crested newt), Rana arvalis (moor frog), Rana temporaria (common frog), and Bufo bufo (common toad), as well as an average of 0.9 species per site, reflecting the species composition at the time of sampling in mid-July 2020. In addition to the species mentioned above, the conventional survey detected Epidalea calamita (natterjack toad) and an average of 1.7 species per site, reflecting the species composition at the time of sampling in early June 2020. The similarity between the methods applied in the present study was 27%, thus indicating a large number of unique observations of both eDNA metabarcoding and conventional surveys. The differences in detection can most likely be explained by the time of sampling, which was conducted a month apart. eDNA metabarcoding was efficient in detecting multiple amphibian species and produced unique observations that were not detected using conventional survey methods. Applying eDNA techniques as a supplement will most likely produce important knowledge on species distribution and presence, as well as enable more frequent monitoring due to cost efficiency and disturbance

eDNA Metabarcoding Benchmarked towards Conventional Survey Methods in Amphibian Monitoring

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Amphibian species are declining worldwide, and precise monitoring is key to ensuring timely protection and thereby ceasing deteriorating populations. Conventional monitoring methods are invasive, time-consuming, and dependent on expert knowledge. eDNA methods have been suggested as a replacement for or supplement to conventional survey methods. The present study assessed amphibian detection of conventional survey methods and eDNA metabarcoding in Danish lakes and ponds to address how the application of eDNA surveys can supplement the currently applied methodology. The study found eDNA metabarcoding to detect five out of six species detected through conventional methods. Furthermore, it is expected that the results in the present study reflect the time of sampling for the applied methods. The findings in the present study indicate that eDNA metabarcoding detects multiple Danish amphibian species and can produce knowledge on the occurrence and distribution for amphibian species. Implementing it as a supplement for conventional survey methods in nature monitoring will enable a higher frequency of monitoring and yield knowledge of species composition. ABSTRACT: A keystone in protection work is accurate and thorough the monitoring of amphibian species, and the currently applied conventional survey methods are invasive, time-consuming, and dependent on expert knowledge. Research suggests that eDNA metabarcoding is a precise and cost-efficient method that could supplement the currently applied methods. The present study assessed the efficiency of conventional survey methods and eDNA metabarcoding in terms of species richness, the average number of detected species per site, the relative frequency of species occurrence, and the similarity of applied methods. The study found eDNA metabarcoding surveys to detect Lissotriton vulgaris (smooth newt), Triturus cristatus (great crested newt), Rana arvalis (moor frog), Rana temporaria (common frog), and Bufo bufo (common toad), as well as an average of 0.9 species per site, reflecting the species composition at the time of sampling in mid-July 2020. In addition to the species mentioned above, the conventional survey detected Epidalea calamita (natterjack toad) and an average of 1.7 species per site, reflecting the species composition at the time of sampling in early June 2020. The similarity between the methods applied in the present study was 27%, thus indicating a large number of unique observations of both eDNA metabarcoding and conventional surveys. The differences in detection can most likely be explained by the time of sampling, which was conducted a month apart. eDNA metabarcoding was efficient in detecting multiple amphibian species and produced unique observations that were not detected using conventional survey methods. Applying eDNA techniques as a supplement will most likely produce important knowledge on species distribution and presence, as well as enable more frequent monitoring due to cost efficiency and disturbance