Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 437–447 | Cite as

Early detection of a highly invasive bivalve based on environmental DNA (eDNA)

  • Zhiqiang Xia
  • Aibin Zhan
  • Yangchun Gao
  • Lei Zhang
  • G. Douglas Haffner
  • Hugh J. MacIsaac
Original Paper


Management of non-indigenous invasive species (NIS) is challenging owing in part to limitations of early detection and identification. The advent of environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques provides an efficient way to detect NIS when their abundance is extremely low. However, eDNA-based methods often suffer from uncertain detection sensitivity, which requires detailed testing before applying these methods in the field. Here we developed an eDNA tool for early detection of the highly invasive golden mussel, Limnoperna fortunei, based on the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene (COI). Further, we tested technical issues, including sampling strategy and detection sensitivity, based on a laboratory experiment. We then applied the method to field samples collected from water bodies in China where this mussel has or is expected to colonize. Results showed that the detection limit varied extensively among our newly developed primer pairs, ranging from 4 × 10−2 to 4 × 10−6 ng of total genomic DNA. Laboratory detection was affected by the availability of eDNA (i.e., both mussel abundance and incubation time). Detection capacity was higher in laboratory samples containing re-suspended matter from the bottom layer versus that collected from the surface. Among 25 field sites, detection was 100% at sites with high mussel abundance and as low as 40% at sites with low abundance when tested using our most sensitive primer pair. Early detection of NIS present at low abundance in nature requires not only sensitive primers, but also an optimized sampling strategy to reduce the occurrence of false negatives. Careful selection and detailed testing of primer pairs ensures effective eDNA-based species detection in surveillance and management programs.


eDNA Golden mussel Invasive species Limnoperna fortunei Primer sensitivity Sampling strategy 



Special thanks to the Subject Editor, Dr. John Darling, and two anonymous reviewers for insightful and constructive comments on early versions of this manuscript. We thank Xiaosong Zhao, Chuan Zhou for assistance collecting samples, and Wei Xiong, Ping Ni, Yuzhan Yang and Yaping Lin for assistance with primer design and DNA extraction. The Water Protection Bureau of Danjiangkou City and Miyun Reservoir Management kindly provided sampling boats and access. Funding was provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31622011) to AZ, the Ontario-China Research Innovation Fund (2015DFG71210) to LZ, the Mitacs Globelink (Canada) to GDH, and NSERC Discovery grants and Canada Research Chairs to GDH and HJM.

Supplementary material

10530_2017_1545_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)


  1. Balasingham KD, Walter RP, Heath DD (2017) Residual eDNA detection sensitivity assessed by quantitative real-time PCR in a river ecosystem. Mol Ecol Resour 17:523–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes MA, Turner CR, Jerde CL, Renshaw MA, Chadderton WL, Lodge DM (2014) Environmental conditions influence eDNA persistence in aquatic systems. Environ Sci Technol 48:1819–1827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohmann K, Evans A, Gilbert MT et al (2014) Environmental DNA for wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. Trends Ecol Evol 29:358–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boltovskoy D (2015) Limnoperna fortunei. The ecology, distribution and control of a swiftly spreading invasive fouling mussel. Springer, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown EA, Chain FJJ, Zhan A, MacIsaac HJ, Cristescu ME (2016) Early detection of aquatic invaders using metabarcoding reveals a high number of non-indigenous species in Canadian ports. Divers Distrib 22:1045–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dejean T, Valentini A, Miquel C, Taberlet P, Bellemain E, Miaud C (2012) Improved detection of an alien invasive species through environmental DNA barcoding: the example of the American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus. J Appl Ecol 49:953–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dougherty MM, Larson ER, Renshaw MA, Gantz CA, Egan SP, Erickson DM, Lodge DM (2016) Environmental DNA (eDNA) detects the invasive rusty crayfish Orconectes rusticus at low abundances. J Appl Ecol 53:722–732CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Egan SP, Barnes MA, Hwang CT, Mahon AR, Feder JL, Ruggiero ST, Tanner CE, Lodge DM (2013) Rapid invasive species detection by combining environmental DNA with light transmission spectroscopy. Conserv Lett 6:402–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ficetola GF, Taberlet P, Coissac E (2016) How to limit false positives in environmental DNA and metabarcoding? Mol Ecol Resour 16:604–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldberg CS, Turner CR, Deiner K et al (2016) Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods Ecol Evol 7:1299–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harvey CT, Qureshi SA, MacIsaac HJ (2009) Detection of a colonizing, aquatic, non-indigenous species. Divers Distrib 15:429–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, DeWaard JR (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hebert PDN, Penton EH, Burns JM, Janzen DH, Hallwachs W (2004) Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgerator. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:14812–14817CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Heinrichs J, Kreier HP, Feldberg K, Schmidt AR, Zhu RL, Shaw B, Shaw AJ, Wissemann V (2011) Formalizing morphologically cryptic biological entities: new insights from DNA taxonomy, hybridization, and biogeography in the leafy liverwort Porella Platyphylla (Jungermanniopsida, Porellales). Am J Bot 98:1252–1262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffman JC, Kelly JR, Trebitz AS, Peterson GS, Corlis CW (2011) Effort and potential efficiencies for aquatic non-native species early detection. Can J Fish Aqu Sci 68:264–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holden MH, Nyrop JP, Ellner SP (2016) The economic benefit of time-varying surveillance effort for invasive species management. J Appl Ecol 53:712–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ikeda K, Dio H, Tanaka K, Kawai T, Negishi JN (2016) Using environmental DNA to detect an endangered crayfish Cambaroides japonicus in streams. Conserv Genet Resour 8:231–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiang F, Fu W, Clarke AR, Schutze MK, Susanto A, Zhu S, Li Z (2016) A high-throughput detection method for invasive fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) species based on microfluidic dynamic array. Mol Ecol Resour 16:1378–1388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Karateyev AY, Boltovoskoy D, Padilla DK, Burlakova LE (2007) The invasive bivalves Dreissena polymorpha and Limnoperna fortunei: parallels, contrasts, potential spread and invasion impacts. J Shellfish Res 26:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kekkonen M, Hebert PDN (2014) DNA barcode-based delineation of putative species: efficient start for taxonomic workflows. Mol Ecol Resour 14:706–715CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Lacoursière-Roussel A, Rosabal M, Bernatchez L (2016) Estimating fish abundance and biomass from eDNA concentrations: variability among capture methods and environmental conditions. Mol Ecol Resour 16:1401–1414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. McKee MM, Spear SF, Pierson TW (2015) The effect of dilution and the use of a post-extraction nucleic acid purification column on the accuracy, precision, and inhibition of environmental DNA samples. Biol Conserv 183:70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nakano D, Baba T, Endo N et al (2015) Invasion, dispersion, population persistence and ecological impacts of a freshwater mussel (Limnoperna fortunei) in the Honshu Island of Japan. Biol Invasions 17:743–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pečnikar ZF, Buzan EV (2014) 20 years since the introduction of DNA barcoding: from theory to application. J Appl Genet 55:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pie MR (2006) A fast and accurate molecular method for the detection of larvae of the golden mussel Limnoperna fortunei (Mollusca: Mytilidae) in plankton samples. J Molluscan Stud 72:218–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pie MR, Stroher PR, Agostinis AO, Belmonte-Lopes R, Tadra-Sfeir MZ, Ostrensky A (2017) Development of a real-time PCR assay for the detection of the golden mussel (Limnoperna fortunei, Mytilidae) in environmental samples. An Acad Bras Ciênc 89:1041–1045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rees HC, Maddison BC, Middleditch DJ, Patmore JRM, Gough KC, Crispo E (2014) The detection of aquatic animal species using environmental DNA—a review of eDNA as a survey tool in ecology. J Appl Ecol 51:1450–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ricciardi A (1998) Global range expansion of the Asian mussel Limnoperna fortunei (Mytilidae): another fouling threat to freshwater systems. Biofouling 13:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmelzle MC, Kinziger AP (2016) Using occupancy modelling to compare environemtenal DNA to traditional field methods for regional-scal monitoring of an endangered aquatic species. Mol Ecol Resour 1:895–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schultz MT, Lance RF (2016) Modeling the sensitivity of field surveys for detection of environmental DNA (eDNA). PLoS ONE 10:e0141503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Strickler KM, Fremier AK, Goldberg CS (2015) Quantifying effects of UV-B, temperature, and pH on eDNA degradation in aquatic microcosms. Biol Conserv 183:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Taberlet P, Coissac E, Hajibabaei M, Rieseberg LH (2012) Environmental DNA. Mol Ecol 21:1789–1793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Tréguier A, Paillisson JM, Dejean T, Valentini A, Schlaepfer MA, Roussel JM, Crispo E (2014) Environmental DNA surveillance for invertebrate species: advantages and technical limitations to detect invasive crayfish Procambarus clarkii in freshwater ponds. J Appl Ecol 51:871–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turner CR, Barnes MA, Xu CC, Jones SE, Jerde CL, Lodge DM (2014) Particle size distribution and optimal capture of aqueous macrobial eDNA. Methods Ecol Evol 5:676–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turner CR, Uy KL, Everhart RC (2015) Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water. Biol Conserv 183:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Valentini A, Taberlet P, Miaud C et al (2016) Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol 25:929–942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Walsh JR, Carpenter SR, Vander Zanden MJ (2016) Invasive species triggers a massive loss of ecosystem services through a trophic cascade. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:4081–4085CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Waters JM, Dijkstra LH, Wallis GP (2000) Biogeography of a southern hemisphere freshwater fish: how important is marine dispersal? Mol Ecol 9:1815–1821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilcox TM, McKelvey KS, Young MK, Jane SF, Lowe WH, Whiteley AR, Schwartz MK (2013) Robust detection of rare species using environmental DNA: the importance of primer specificity. PLoS ONE. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059520 Google Scholar
  40. Wilcox TM, McKelvey KS, Young MK et al (2016) Understanding environmental DNA detection probabilities: a case study using a stream-dwelling char Salvelinus fontinalis. Biol Conserv 194:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xiong W, Li H, Zhan A (2016) Early detection of invasive species in marine ecosystems using high-throughput sequencing: technical challenges and possible solutions. Mar Biol 163:139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ye B, Cao X, Xu M, Wang Z, Lin C (2011) Study of Limnoperna fortunei invasion in long distance water transmission project. Water Wastewater Eng 37:99–102 (in Chinese with English abstract) Google Scholar
  43. Zhan A, MacIsaac HJ (2015) Rare biosphere exploration using high-throughput sequencing: research progress and perspectives. Conserv Genet 16:513–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhan A, Hulák M, Sylvester F et al (2013) High sensitivity of 454 pyrosequencing for detection of rare species in aquatic communities. Methods Ecol Evol 4:558–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhan A, Bailey SA, Heath DD, MacIsaac HJ (2014) Performance comparison of genetic markers for high-throughput sequencing-based biodiversity assessment in complex communities. Mol Ecol Resour 14:1049–1059PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhan A, Zhang L, Xia Z, Ni P, Xiong W, Chen Y, Haffner GD, MacIsaac HJ (2015) Water diversions facilitate spread of non-native species. Biol Invasions 17:3073–3080CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhiqiang Xia
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Aibin Zhan
    • 3
    • 4
  • Yangchun Gao
    • 3
    • 4
  • Lei Zhang
    • 2
    • 5
  • G. Douglas Haffner
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Hugh J. MacIsaac
    • 1
    • 6
  1. 1.Great Lakes Institute for Environmental ResearchUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada
  2. 2.International S&T Collaborative Base for Water Environment Monitoring and Simulation in Three Gorges Reservoir RegionChongqingChina
  3. 3.Research Center for Eco-Environmental SciencesChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  5. 5.College of Resources and EnvironmentSouthwest UniversityChongqingChina
  6. 6.Yunnan UniversityKunmingChina

Personalised recommendations