Advertisement

Conservation Genetics Resources

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 5–7 | Cite as

An eDNA assay for river otter detection: a tool for surveying a semi-aquatic mammal

  • Ticha M. Padgett-StewartEmail author
  • Taylor M. Wilcox
  • Kellie J. Carim
  • Kevin S. McKelvey
  • Michael K. Young
  • Michael K. Schwartz
Technical Note

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is an effective tool for the detection of elusive or low-density aquatic organisms. However, it has infrequently been applied to mammalian species. North American river otters (Lontra canadensis) are both broad ranging and semi-aquatic, making them an ideal candidate for examining the uses of eDNA for detection of mammals. We developed a species-specific assay for detection of North American river otters using eDNA. The assay was tested for specificity against closely-related mustelids native to western North America, and was validated through testing environmental samples.

Keywords

Environmental DNA River otters Semi-aquatic mammals Survey 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank ZooMontana and Mackenzie Mentel for exhibit samples. We thank Justin Gude, Neil Anderson, Jeff Copeland, Wayne Melquist, Jody Tucker, Kristy Pilgrim, and Joel Sauder for reference samples. We also thank Rob Jensen and Advanced Problems in Science, Hellgate high school, Missoula, MT, USA, for their support. TMW is supported by a NSF Graduate Research Fellowship (Grant No. DGE-1313190).

References

  1. Bohmann K, Evans A, Gilbert MTP, Carvalho GR, Creer S, Knapp M, Douglas MY, de Bruyn M (2014) Environmental DNA for wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. Trends Ecol Evolut 29(6):358–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carim KJ, Padgett-Stewart T, Wilcox TM, Young MK, McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2015) Protocol for collecting eDNA samples from streams. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation. V2.3 (July 2015). http://www.fs.fed.us/research/genomics-center/docs/edna/edna-protocol.pdf
  3. Crimmins SM, Roberts NM, Hamilton DA, Mynsberge AR (2009) Seasonal detection rates of river otters (Lontra canadensis) using bridge-site and random-site surveys. Can J Zool 87:993–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (2003) Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. JHU Press, Baltimore, pp 708–734Google Scholar
  5. Goldberg CS, Pilliod DS, Arkle RS, Waits LP (2011) Molecular detection of vertebrates in stream water: a demonstration using Rocky Mountain tailed frogs and Idaho giant salamanders. PloS one 6(7):e22746CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldberg CS, Sepulveda A, Ray A, Baumgardt J, Waits LP (2013) Environmental DNA as a new method for early detection of New Zealand mudsnails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). Freshw Sci 32(3):792–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucl Acids Symp Ser 41:95–98Google Scholar
  8. Jerde CL, Mahon AR, Chadderton WL, Lodge DM (2011) “Sight-unseen” detection of rare aquatic species using environmental DNA. Conserv Lett 4(2):150–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koepfli KP, Deere KA, Slater GJ, Begg C, Begg K, Grassman L, Lucherini M, Veron G, Wayne RK (2008) Multigene phylogeny of the Mustelidae: resolving relationships, tempo and biogeographic history of a mammalian adaptive radiation. BMC Biol 6(1):10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. McKelvey KS, Young MK, Knotek L, Carim KJ, Wilcox TM, Padgett TM, Schwartz MK (In review) Sampling large geographic areas for rare species using environmental DNA (eDNA): a study of bull trout occupancy in western Montana. J Fish BiolGoogle Scholar
  11. Olson ZH, Briggler JT, Williams RN (2012) An eDNA approach to detect eastern hellbenders (Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis) using samples of water. Wildl Res 39(7):629–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stevens SS, Just EH, Cordes RC, Brooks RP, Serfass TL (2011) The influence of habitat quality on the detection of river otter (Lontra canadensis) latrines near bridges. Am Midl Nat 166:435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tamura GS, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evolut 30:2725–2729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thomsen P, Kielgast JOS, Iversen LL, Wiuf C, Rasmussen M, Gilbert MTP, Willerslev E (2012) Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. Mol Ecol 21(11):2565–2573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Untergrasser A, Cutcutache I, Koressaar T, Ye J, Faircloth BC, Remm M, Rozen SG (2012) Primer3: new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res 40(15):e115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 8(3):e59520CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish ConservationRocky Mountain Research StationMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.Hellgate High SchoolMissoulaUSA
  3. 3.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations