Conservation Genetics Resources

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 563–567 | Cite as

Meta-genomic surveillance of invasive species in the bait trade

  • Andrew R. MahonEmail author
  • Lucas R. Nathan
  • Christopher L. Jerde
Application Essays


There are a number of different pathways by which invasive species can enter aquatic ecosystems, including the relatively unstudied live bait trade. Through contaminated stocks, the bait trade vector has the potential to distribute species widely, and unknowingly, across a wide geographic area. These introductions can have large implications for the conservation of native biodiversity and habitats. Reliable techniques for monitoring for invasive species remains challenging, particularly due to a lack of taxonomic expertise by those using live bait. Here, we show that non-target species (i.e., rare; not intended to be purchased) can be detected based on environmental DNA (eDNA) collected in water samples from commercial bait vendors. Utilizing high-throughput DNA sequencing, we analyzed water samples collected from six different commercial bait shops, screening the resulting sequence data for presence of non-target, and potentially invasive species of fish. Our findings show that DNA from multiple non-target species was present in the collected samples, including DNA from at least one potentially harmful invasive species. Additionally, this work supports the use of eDNA surveillance for screening the bait shop vector for rare and potentially harmful aquatic invasive species.


Invasive species Bait shop Genomics Great Lakes Environmental DNA 



People (M. Hensen, M. Budny, J. Bergner). We also thank state Department of Natural Resources groups in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Illinois. This project was funded in part by a grant to ARM and CLJ from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Great Lake Restoration Initiative. Additional funding to CLJ was from CSCOR, GLRI eDNA surveillance, Great Lakes Fisheries Trust, SERDP. Additional support for ARM was from Central Michigan University’s College of Science and Technology and Dept. of Biology (L. Nathan RA fellowship support).

Supplementary material

12686_2014_213_MOESM1_ESM.doc (44 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 43 kb)


  1. Ficetola GF, Bonin A, Miaud C (2008) Population genetics reveals origin and number of founders in a biological invasion. Mol Ecol 17:773–782. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03622.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Frazier M, Miller AW, Lee H II (2013) Counting at low concentrations: the statistical challenges of verifying ballast water discharge standards. Ecol Appl 23(2):1–13 Google Scholar
  3. Holeck KT, Mills EL, MacIsaac HJ et al (2004) Bridging troubled waters: biological invasions, transoceanic shipping, and the Laurentian Great Lakes. Bioscience 54:919–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M et al (2008) Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. J Appl Ecol 45:403–414. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01442.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jerde CL, Mahon AR, Chadderton WL, Lodge DM (2011) “Sight-unseen” detection of rare aquatic species using environmental DNA. Conserv Lett 4:150–157. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00158.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jerde CL, Chadderton WL, Mahon AR et al (2013) Detection of Asian carp DNA as part of a Great Lakes basin-wide surveillance program. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 70:522–526. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2012-0478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kelly DW (2007) Vectors and pathways for nonindigenous aquatic species in the Great Lakes. Transportation Research Board Special ReportGoogle Scholar
  8. Kelly RP, Port JA, Yamahara KM, Crowder LB (2014) Using environmental DNA to census marine fishes in a large mesocosm. PLoS One 9:e86175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086175.s007 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Krause L, Diaz NN, Bartels D et al (2006) Finding novel genes in bacterial communities isolated from the environment. Bioinformatics 22:e281–e289. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl247 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D et al (2002) An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:2407–2413. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lodge DM, Williams S, MacIsaac HJ et al (2006) Biological invasions: recommendations for US policy and management. Ecol Appl 16:2035–2054. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2035:BIRFUP]2.0.CO;2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lodge DM, Turner CR, Jerde CL et al (2012) Perspective: conservation in a cup of water: estimating biodiversity and population abundance from environmental DNA. Mol Ecol 23:2555–2558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mahon AR, Rohly A, Budny M et al (2010) Environmental DNA monitoring and surveillance: standard operation procedures. Report to the United States Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratories, Cooperative Environmental Studies Unit, Vicksburg, Mississippi. CESU agreement #W912HZ-08-2-0014, modification P00007Google Scholar
  14. Mahon AR, Jerde CL, Galaska M et al (2013) Validation of eDNA surveillance sensitivity for detection of asian carps in controlled and field experiments. PLoS One 8:e58316. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058316.t002 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mills EL, Dermott RM, Roseman E et al (1993) Colonization, ecology, and population-structure of the quagga mussel (Bivalvia, Dreissenidae) in the Lower Great-Lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:2305–2314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moy PB, Polls I, Dettmers JM (2011) The Chicago sanitary and ship canal aquatic nuisance species dispersal barrier. Invasive Asian Carps in North America. Am Fish Soc 74:121–137Google Scholar
  17. Rahel FJ (2004) Unauthorized fish introductions: fisheries management of the people, for the people, or by the people? American Fisheries Society SymposiumGoogle Scholar
  18. Shokralla S, Spall JL, Gibson JF, Hajibabaei M (2012) Next-generation sequencing technologies for environmental DNA research. Mol Ecol 21:1794–1805. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05538.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomsen PF, Kielgast J, Iversen LL et al (2012) Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. Mol Ecol 21:2565–2573. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05418.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilcox TM, McKelvey KS, Young MK et al (2013) Robust detection of rare species using environmental DNA: the importance of primer specificity. PLoS One 8:e59520. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059520.t003 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wommack KE, Bhavsar J, Ravel J (2008) Metagenomics: read length matters. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:1453–1463. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02181-07 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew R. Mahon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lucas R. Nathan
    • 1
  • Christopher L. Jerde
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biology, Institute for Great Lakes ResearchCentral Michigan UniversityMount PleasantUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Change Initiative, Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations