Aqueous macrobial eDNA bibliography · Biggs et al. 2015. Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)

Aqueous macrobial eDNA bibliography

Maintained by Taylor Wilcox

Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling has been variably used to describe the sampling of genetic

material from environmental samples. For the purposes of this bibliography, I take a relatively narrow

definition along the lines of Thomsen and Willerslev (2015): Environmental DNA sampling is the

sampling of genetic material from environmental samples where individuals or pieces of individuals are

not isolated prior to analysis. Thus, sampling for sloughed fish DNA in a water sample is eDNA, but

species identification from a hair snare is not. Further, I've adopted language proposed by Turner et al.

(2014A) where microbial eDNA refers to sampling of small, whole individuals (such as bacterial cells)

and macrobial eDNA refers to sampling of genetic material that has been separated from the body of a

relatively large organism. This bibliography focuses on macrobial eDNA from water samples. Most

papers focus on contemporary eDNA (versus ancient DNA; Thomsen and Willerslev 2015). The

bibliography is based on a list originally assembled by Dan Isaak for the Climate-Aquatics Blog (#72).

The list has also benefited from a literature search conducted by Mae Giddings who maintains a

bibliography on aqueous microbial eDNA (http://aquaticedna.weebly.com/).

If you would like to suggest any additional citations or make any corrections to this list, please send me

an email: taylor (.) m (.) wilcox (at) gmail (.) com

Last updated: 28 Nov 2017

Adams. 2017. The detection and quantification of aquatic reptilian environmental DNA. Dissertation at

Iowa State University.

Agersnap et al. 2017. Monitoring of noble, signal and narrow-clawed crayfish using environmental DNA

from freshwater samples. PLoS ONE 12(6):e0179261

Amberg et al. 2015. Improving efficiency and reliability of environmental DNA analysis for silver carp. J

Great Lakes Res. Elsevier B.V.; 2015;41: 367–373. DOI:10.1016/j.jglr.2015.02.00

Andrusziewicz et al. 2017A. Biomonitoring of marine vertebrates in Monterey Bay using eDNA

metabarcoding. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0176343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176343

Andruskieqicz et al. 2017B. Persistence of marine fish environmental DNA and the influence of sunlight.

PLoS ONE 12(9):e0185043.

Ardura and Zaiko 2018. PCR-based assay for Mya arenaria detection from marine environmental samples

and tracking its invasion in coastal ecosystems. Journal for Nature Conservation.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2018.02.007

Aylward et al. 2018. A novel environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling method for aye-ayes from their

feeding traces. bioRxiv. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/272153

Bakker et al. 2017. Environmental DNA reveals tropical shark diversity in contrasting levels of

anthropogenic impact. Scientific Reports. In press.

Balasingham et al. 2017. Environmental DNA detection of rare and invasive fish species in two Great

Lakes tributaries. Molecular Ecology. DOI: 10.1111/mec.14395

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/stream_temp/stream_temperature_climate_aquatics_blog.html

http://aquaticedna.weebly.com/).

Balasingham et al. 2016. Residual eDNA detection sensitivity assessed quantitative real-time PCR in a

river ecosystem. Molecular Ecology Resources.17(3):523-532. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12598.

Barnes et al. 2014. Environmental conditions influence eDNA persistence in aquatic systems.

Environmental science & technology 48: 1819-1827.

Barnes & Turner. 2015. The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics.

Conservation Genetics doi:10.1007/s10592-

Baums et al. 2018. Using Seawater to Document Coral-Zoothanthella Diversity: A New Approach to

Coral Reef Monitoring Using Environmental DNA. Front. Mar. Sci., 20 February 2018 |

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00028

Beauclerc et al. 2018. Development of quantitative PCR primers and probes for environmental DNA

detection of amphibians in Ontario. Conservation Genetics Resources.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-017-0962-3

Bellemain et al. 2016. Trails of river monsters: Detecting critically endangered Mekong giant catfish

Pangasianodon gigas using environmental DNA. Global Ecology and Conservation 7:148-156.

DOI:10.1016/j.gecco.2016.06.007

Bergman et al. 2016. Detection of Adult Green Sturgeon Using Environmental DNA Analysis. PLoS

ONE 11(4): e0153500. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0153500.

Biggs et al. 2015. Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the

great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Biological Conservation 183: DOI:

10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.029.

Bista et al. 2017. Annual time-series analysis of aqueous eDNA reveals ecologically relevant dynamics of

lake ecosystem biodiversity. Nature Communications. 8:14087. doi:10.1038/ncomms14087

Blackman et al. 2017. Detection of a new non-native freshwater species by DNA metabarcoding of

environmental samples — first record of Gammarus fossarum in the UK. Aquatic Invasions. 12.

Bohmann et al. 2014. Environmental DNA for wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. Trends in

Ecology and Evolution 29:358-367.

Boothroyd et al. 2016. Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection and habitat occupancy of threatened

spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus). Aquatic Conservation. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2617.

Borrell et al. 2017A. DNA in a bottle—Rapid metabarcoding survey for early alerts of invasive species in

ports. PLOS ONE 12(9):e0183347.

Borrell et al. 2017B. Metabarcoding and post-sampling strategies to discover non-indigenous species: A

case study in the estuaries of the central south Bay of Biscay. Jounral for Nature Conservation.

Brost et al. 2018. A model-based solution for observational errors in laboratory studies. Molecular

Ecology Resources. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12765

Bucklin et al. 2016. Metabarcoding of marine zooplankton: prospects, progress and pitfalls. Journal of

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-017-0962-3

Plankton Research. DOI: 10.1093/plankt/fbw023.

Buxton et al. 2018. Seasonal variation in environmental DNA detection in sediment and water samples.

PLoS ONE 13(1): e0191737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191737

Buxton et al. 2017A. Is the detection of aquatic environmental DNA influenced by substrate type? PLoS

ONE 12(8): e0183371. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183371

Buxton et al. 2017B. Seasonal variation in environmental DNA in relation to population size and

environmental factors. Scientific Reports 7:46294. DOI:10.1038/srep46294

Bylemans et al. 2016. An environmental DNA (eDNA) based method for monitoring spawning activity: a

case study using the endangered Macquarie perch (Macquaria australasica). Methods in Ecology

and Evolution. 8(5). DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12709.

Bylemans et al. 2016. Improving the containment of a freshwater invader using environmental DNA

(eDNA) based monitoring. Biological Invasions.

Cai et al. 2017. Using eDNA to detect the distribution and density of invasive crayfish in the Honghe-

Hani rice terrace World Heritage site. PLoS ONE 12(5): e0177724.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177724

Cannon et al. 2016. In silico assessment of primers for eDNA studies using PrimerTree and application to

characterize the biodiversity surrounding the Cuyahoga River. Scientific Reports. 6: 22908.

DOI:10.1038/srep22908

Carim et al. 2017. A Noninvasive Tool to Assess the Distribution of Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus

tridentatus) in the Columbia River Basin. PLoS ONE 12(1): e0169334.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0169334.

Carim et al. 2016. Environmental DNA Marker Development with Sparse Biological Information: A Case

Study on Opossum Shrimp (Mysis diluviana). PLoS ONE 11(8): e0161664.


Carim et al. 2016. An environmental DNA assay for detecting Arctic grayling in the upper Missouri River

basin, North America. Conservation Genetics Resources.

Carim et al. 2016. An environmental DNA marker for detecting nonnative brown trout (Salmo trutta).

Conservation Genetics Resources. DOI: 10.1007/s12686-016-0548-5.

Carim et al. 2016. A protocol for collecting environmental DNA samples from streams. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RMRS-GTR-355. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 18 p.

Carlsson et al. 2017. A qPCR MGB probe based eDNA assay for European freshwater pearl mussel

(Margaritifera margaritifera L.). Aquatic Conservation. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2788

Carraro et al. 2017. Integrated field, laboratory, and theoretical study of PKD spread in a Swiss prealpine

river. PNAS. 114(45):11992-7. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1713691114

Chambert et al. 2018. An analytical framework for estimating aquatic species density from environmental


DNA. Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3764

Civade et al. 2016. Spatial Representativeness of Environmental DNA Metabarcoding Signal for Fish

Biodiversity Assessment in a Natural Freshwater System. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0157366.


Clusa et al. 2017. eDNA for detection of five highly invasive molluscs. A case study in urban rivers from

the Iberian Peninsula. PloS ONE. 12(11): e0188126.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188126.

Clusa et al. 2017. An extremely sensitive nested PCR-RFLP mitochondrial marker for detection and

identification of salmonids in eDNA from water samples. PeerJ, 5. DOI:10.7717/peerj.3045

Collins et al. 2013. Something in the water: biosecurity monitoring of ornamental fish imports using

environmental DNA. Biological Invasions 15:1209–1215.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-012-0376-9

Cordier et al. 2017. Predicting the Ecological Quality Status of Marine Environments from eDNA

Metabarcoding Data Using Supervised Machine Learning. Environmental Science and

Technology. 51(16):9118-126. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01518

Cowart et al. 2018. Metagenomic sequencing of environmental DNA reveals marine faunal assemblages

from the West Antarctic Peninsula. Marine Genomics. 37:148-160.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margen.2017.11.003

Cowart et al. 2018. Development and field validation of an environmental DNA (eDNA) assay for

invasive clams of the genus Corbicula. Management of Biological Invasions. 9.

Craine et al. 2017. DNA metabarcoding potentially reveals multi-assemblage eutrophication responses in

an eastern North American river. bioRxiv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/186452

Currier et al. 2018. Validation of environmental DNA (eDNA) as a detection tool for at-risk freshwater

pearly mussel species (Bivalvia: Unionidae). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2869

Czechwoski et al. 2018. Advancing global monitoring of ship borne invasive species through streamlined

metabarcoding. PeerJ Preprints 6:e26573v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26573v1.

Darling et al. 2011. From molecules to management: adopting DNA-based methods for monitoring

biological invasions in aquatic environments. Environmental Research 111:978–988.

Davidson et al. 2016. Laboratory and field validation of a simple method for detecting four species of

non-native freshwater fish using eDNA. Journal of Fish Biology. DOI: 10.1111/jfb.13086.

Davidson et al. 2017. Application of environmental DNA analysis to inform invasive fish eradication

operations. The Science of Nature 104: 35. DOI:10.1007/s00114-017-1453-9

Davy et al. 2015. Development andValidation of Environmental DNA (eDNA) Markers for Detection of

Freshwater Turtles. PLoS One 10: e0130965.

Dejean et al. 2011. Persistence of environmental DNA in freshwater ecosystems. PLoS ONE 6:e23398.


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margen.2017.11.003

https://doi.org/10.1101/186452

https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26573v1

Deiner et al. 2017A. Long-range PCR allows sequencing of mitochondrial genomes from environmental

DNA. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12836

Deiner et al. 2017B. Enviornmental DNA metabarcoding: transforming how we survey animal and plant

communities. Molecular Ecology. DOI: 10.1111/mec.14350

Deiner et al. 2016. Environmental DNA reveals that rivers are conveyer belts of biodiversity information.

Nature Communications 7:12544. DOI:10.1038/ncomms12544

Deiner et al. 2015. Choice of capture and extraction methods affect detection of freshwater biodiversity

from environmental DNA. Biological Conservation 183:53-63.

Deiner et al. 2015. Using environmental DNA to track non-indigenous species in shipping ports. Genome.

58(5):210-210.

Deiner & Altermatt 2014. Transport distance of invertebrate environmental DNA in a natural river. PLoS

ONE 9:e88786.

Diaz-Ferguson et al. 2016. History, applications, methodological issues and perspectives for the use

environmental DNA (eDNA) in marine and freshwater environments. International Journal of

Tropical Biology.

Díaz-Ferguson and Moyer. 2014. History, applications, methodological issues and perspectives for the

use environmental DNA (eDNA) in marine and freshwater environments. RBT Revista De

Biología Tropical, 62(4), 1273-1284.

Divoll et al. 2018. Disparities in second-generation DNA metabarcoding results exposed with accessible

and repeatable workflows. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12770

Djurhuus et al. 2017. Evaluation of filtration and DNA extraction methods for environmental DNA

biodiversity assessments across multiple trophic levels. Frontiers in Marine Science. DOI:

10.3389/fmars.2017.00314

Doi et al. 2017. Water sampling for environmental DNA surveys by using an unmanned aerial vehicle.

Limnology and Oceanography Methods. DOI: 10.1002/lom3.10214

Doi et al. 2017. Detection of an endangered aquatic heteropteran using environmental DNA in a wetland

ecosystem. Royal Society of Open Science. 4: 170568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170568

Doi et al. 2016. Environmental DNA analysis for estimating the abundance and biomass of stream fish.

Freshwater Biology. DOI: 10.1111/fwb.12846.

Doi et al. 2015. Use of Droplet Digital PCR for Estimation of Fish Abundance and Biomass in

Environmental DNA Surveys. PLoS One 10:e0122763.

Doi 2015. Droplet digital PCR outperforms real-time PCR in the detection of environmental DNA from

an invasive fish species. Environmental Science and Technology 49:5601–5608.

Dorazio and Erickson. 2017. eDNAoccupancy: An R Package for Multi-scale Occupancy Modeling of

Environmental DNA Data. Molecular Ecology Resources. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12735

Doughtery et al. 2016. Environmental DNA (eDNA) detects the invasive rusty crayfish Orconectes

rusticus at low abundances. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12621.

Dunker et al. 2016. Potential of Environmental DNA to Evaluate Northern Pike (Esox lucius) Eradication

Efforts: An Experimental Test and Case Study. PLoS ONE. 11(9):e0162277.


Dunn et al. 2017. Behavior and season affect crayfish detection and density inference using

environmental DNA. Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3316

Dysthe et al. 2017. Quantitative PCR Assays for Detecting Loach Minnow (Rhinichthys cobitis) and

Spikedace (Meda fulgida) in the Southwestern United States. PLoS ONE 11(9):e0162200.

Dysthe et al. 2017. Environmental DNAassays for the sister taxa sauger (Sander canadensis) and walleye

(Sander vitreus). PLoS ONE. 12(4):e0176459.

Eaton et al. 2017. A method for the direct detection of airborne dispersal in lichens.

DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12731

Egan et al. 2013. Rapid Invasive Species Detection by Combining Environmental DNA with Light

Transmission Spectroscopy. Conservation Letters 6:402–409. doi:10.1111/conl.12017

Eichmiller et al. 2016 Effects of temperature and trophic state on degradation of environmental DNA in

lake water. Environmental Science and Technology. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.5b05672.

Eichmiller et al. 2014. The Relationship between the Distribution of Common Carp and Their

Environmental DNA in a Small Lake. PLoS ONE 9():e112611.

Elbrecht and Leese. 2016. Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance?

Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding

Protocol. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0130324. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130324.

Elbrecht and Leese. 2017. Validation and Development of COI Metabarcoding Primers for Freshwater

Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment. Frontiers Environmental Science.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00011

Elbrecth et al. 2017. Assessing strengths and weaknesses of DNA metabarcoding-based

macroinvertebrate identification for routine stream monitoring. Methods in Ecology and

Evolution. DOI:10.1111/2041-210X.12789

Erickson et al. 2016. Detecting the movement and spawning activity of bigheaded carps with

environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology Resources. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12533.

Erickson et al. 2017. Seasonal trends in eDNA detection and occupancy of bigheaded carps. Journal of

Great Lakes Research.

Evans et al. 2017. Comparative Cost and Effort of Fish Distribution Detection via Environmental DNA

Analysis and Electrofishing. Fisheries 42(2):90-99. DOI:10.1080/03632415.2017.1276329

Evans et al. 2017. Fish community assessment with eDNA metabarcoding: effects of sampling design and

bioinformatic filtering. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. DOI:10.1139/cjfas-

2016-0306.

Evans et al. 2016. Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental

DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources 16(1):29-41. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.

Farrington et al. 2015. Mitochondrial genome sequencing and development of genetic markers for the

detection of DNA of invasive bighead and silver carp in environmental water samples from the

United States. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0117803.

Ficetola et al. 2008. Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples: Biology Letters

4:423–425.

Freeland. 2017. The importance of molecular markers and primer design when characterizing biodiversity

from environmental DNA. Genome. 60(4):358-374. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2016-0100

Fukumoto et al. 2015. A basin-scale application of environmental DNA assessment for rare endemic

species and closely related exotic species in rivers: A case study of giant salamanders in Japan.

Journal of Applied Ecology 52:358-365.

Furlan et al. 2016. Environmental DNA detection of redfin perch, Perca fluviatilis. Conservation Genetics

Resources. 8(115). DOI:10.1007/s12686-016-0523-1

Furlan & Gleeson. 2016. Improving reliability in environmental DNA detection surveys through

enhanced quality control. Marine and Freshwater Research 68(2):

Furlan EM et al. 2016. A framework for estimating the sensitivity of eDNA surveys. Molecular Ecology

Resources 16(3)641-54. DOI:10.1111/1755-0998.12483.

Gargan et al. 2017. Development of a sensitive detection method to survey pelagic biodiversity using

eDNA and quantitative PCR: a case study of devil ray at seamounts. Marine Biology 164:112.

DOI:10.1007/s00227-017-3141-x

Gavin et al. 2018. Methods for the extraction, storage, amplification and sequencing of DNA from

environmental samples. New Zealand Journal of Ecology. 42(1).

Geerts et al. 2018. A search for standardized protocols to detect alien invasive crayfish based on

environmental DNA (eDNA): A lab and field evaluation. Ecological Indicators 84:564-572.

Gingera et al. 2017. Environmental DNA as a detection tool for zebra mussels at the forefront of an

invasion event in Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Management of Biological Invasions. 8.

Goldberg et al. 2016. Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect

aquatic species. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12595.

Goldberg et al. 2015. Moving environmental DNA methods from concept to practice for monitoring

aquatic macroorganisms. Biological Conservation 183:1-3.

Goldberg et al. 2013. Environmental DNA as a new method for early detection of New Zealand

mudsnails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). Freshwater Science 32:792-800.

Goldberg et al. 2011. Molecular detection of vertebrates in stream water: A demonstration using Rocky

Mountain tailed frogs and Idaho giant salamanders. PLoS ONE 6(7):e22746.

Gomes et al. 2017. Use of environmental DNA (eDNA) and water quality data to predict protozoan

parasites outbreaks in fish farms. Aquaculture 479:467-473

Goricki et al. 2017. Environmental DNA in subterranean biology: range extension and taxonomic

implications for Proteus. Scientific Reports. 7:45054. DOI: 10.1038/srep45054

Guilfoyle and Schultz. 2017. The contribution of double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) to

silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) DNA loads in the Chicago Area Waterway System.

Journal of Great Lakes Research. 43(6):1181-5.

Gustavson et al. 2015. An eDNA assay for Irish Petromyzon marinus and Salmo trutta and field

validation in running water. Journal of Fish Biology DOI:10.1111/jfb.12781.

Hall et al. 2015. Evaluating environmental DNA-based quantification of ranavirus infection in wood frog

populations. Mol Ecol Resour. #:1–11. DOI:10.1111/1755-0998.12461

Halstead et al. 2017. An evaluation of the efficacy of using environmental DNA (eDNA) to detect giant

gartersnakes (Thamnophis gigas). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2017-1123, 41 p.,

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20171123.

Hanfling et al. 2016. Environmental DNA metabarcoding of lake fish communities reflects long-term data

from established survey methods. Molecular Ecology. DOI: 10.1111/mec.13660.

Harper et al. 2018. Searching for a signal: Environmental DNA (eDNA) for the detection

of invasive signal crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana, 1852). Management of Biological

Invasions. Volume 9.

Hashizumi et al. 2017. Application of environmental DNA analysis for the detection of Opisthorchis

viverrini DNA in water samples. Acta Tropica.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.01.008.

Hatzenbuhler et al. 2017. Sensitivity and accuracy of high-throughput metabarcoding methods for early

detection of invasive fish species. Scientific Reports. 7:46393. DOI: 10.1038/srep46393

Hinlo et al. 2017. Environmental DNA monitoring and management of invasive fish: comparison of

eDNA and fyke netting. Management of Biological Invasions. 8.

Hinlo et al. 2017. Methods to maximise recovery of environmental DNA from water samples. PLOS

ONE 12(6):e0179251. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.017925

Howell et al. 2018. Molecular Analysis of Environmental Water Samples as a Monitoring Method for the

Fish Parasite Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. Thesis.

Hosler. 2017. Where is the body? Dreissenid mussels, raw water testing, and the real value of

environmental DNA. Management of Biological Invasions. 8.

Hutchins et al. 2017. A probe-based quantitative PCR assay for detecting Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae

in fish tissue and environmental DNA water samples. Conservation Genetics Resources.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-017-0812-3

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20171123

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-017-0812-3

Huver et al. 2015. Development and application of an eDNA method to detect and quantify a pathogenic

parasite in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications 25:991-1002. DOI: 10.1890/14-1530.1.

Ikeda et al. in press. Using environmental DNA to detect an endangered crayfish Cambaroides japonicus

in streams. Conservation Genetics Resources. DOI: 10.1007/s12686-016-0541-z.

Iversen et al. 2015. Monitoring of animal abundance by environmental DNA—An increasingly obscure

perspective: A reply to Klymus et al. 2015. Biological Conservation. DOI:

10.1016/j.biocon.2015.09.024.

Jane et al. 2015. Distance, flow and PCR inhibition: eDNA dynamics in two headwater streams.

Molecular Ecology Resources 15:216-227.

Janosik and Johnston. 2015. Environmental DNA as an effective tool for detection of imperiled fishes.

Environmental Biology of Fishes DOI: 10.1007/s10641-015-0405-5

Jennison M. 2017. Quantifying zebra mussel impacts on harmful algal bloom species in Texas resevoirs

using environmental DNA surveys. Thesis at Texas Tech University. August 2017.

Jerde et al. 2011. “Sight‐unseen” detection of rare aquatic species using environmental DNA.

Conservation Letters 4:150-157.

Jerde and Mahon. 2015. Improving confidence in environmental DNA species detection. Molecular

Ecology Resources 15:461-463.

Jerde et al. 2013. Detection of Asian carp DNA as part of a Great Lakes basin-wide surveillance program.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 70:522–526.

Jerde et al. 2016. Influence of Stream Bottom Substrate on Retention and Transport of Vertebrate

Environmental DNA. Environmental Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01761.

Jo et al, 2017. Rapid degradation of longer DNA fragments enables the improved estimation of

distribution and biomass using environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology Resources. DOI:

10.1111/1755-0998.12685

Katano et al. 2017. Environmental DNA method for estimating salamander distribution in headwater

streams, and a comparison of water sampling methods. PLoS ONE. 12(5): e0176541.


Kelly et al. 2017. The effect of tides on nearshore environmental DNA. PeerJ Preprints.

Kelly et al. 2017. Genetic and Manual Survey Methods Yield Different and Complementary Views of an

Ecosystem. Frontiers in Marine Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00283.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177643

Kelly et al. 2016. Genetic signatures of ecological diversity along an urbanization gradient. PeerJ

4:e2444. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2444.

Kelly et al. 2014. Using Environmental DNA to Census Marine Fishes in a Large Mesocosm.

PLoS OONE. e86175. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0086175

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00283

Kelly. 2016. Making environmental DNA count. Molecular Ecology Resources. 16(1):10-12.

DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12455.

Keskin. 2014. Detection of invasive freshwater fish species using environmental DNA survey.

Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 56:68–74.

Klobucar et al. 2017. At the forefront: evidence of the applicability of using environmental DNA to

quantify the abundance of fish populations in natural lentic waters with additional sampling

considerations. Canadian J of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. DOI:

https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1139%2Fcjfas-2017-

0114

Kolby et al. 2015. Rapid Response to Evaluate the Presence of Amphibian Chytrid Fungus

(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) and Ranavirus in Wild Amphibian Populations in Madagascar.

r. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0125330. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125330

Klymus et al. 2017. Metabarcoding of Environmental DNA Samples to Explore the Use of Uranium Mine

Containment Ponds as a Water Source for Wildlife. Diversity. 9(4):54. DOI :10.3390/d9040054

Klymus et al. 2017. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding assays to detect invasive invertebrate

species in the Great Lakes. PLoS ONE. 12(5):e0177643.

Klymus et al. 2015. Quantification of eDNA shedding rates from invasive bighead carp and silver carp.

Biological Conservation 183:77–84.

Klymus et al. 2015. A reply to Iversen et al.'s comment “Monitoring of animal abundance by

environmental DNA — An increasingly obscure perspective” Biological Conservation DOI:

10.1016/j.biocon.2015.09.025

Kuhn et al. 2017. Comparison of ten different DNA extraction procedures with respect to their suitability

for environmental samples. Journal of Microbiological Methods. 143:78-86.

Lacoursière-Roussel et al. 2016. Improving herpetological surveys in eastern North America using the

environmental DNA method. Genome 59: 991–1007. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1139/gen-2015-0218.

Lacoursière‐Roussel et al. 2016. Quantifying relative fish abundance with eDNA: a promising tool for

fisheries management. Journal of Applied Ecology. 53(4). DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12598

Lacoursière‐Roussel et al. 2016. Estimating fish abundance and biomass from eDNA concentrations:

variability among capture methods and environmental conditions. Molecular Ecology Resources.

16(6):1401-1414. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12522.

Lahoz-Monfort et al. 2015. Statistical Approaches To Account For False Positive Errors In

Environmental DNA Samples. Molecular Ecology Resources. 16(3). DOI: 10.1111/1755-

0998.12486

Lance et al. 2017. Experimental observations on the decay of environmental DNA from bighead and

silver carps. Management of Biological Invasions. 8(3):343-59.

Laramie et al. 2015. Environmental DNA sampling protocol—Filtering water to capture DNA from

aquatic organisms: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 2, chap. A13, 15 p.,

https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1139%2Fcjfas-2017-

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/tm2A13.

Laramie et al. 2015. Characterizing the distribution of an endangered salmonid using environmental DNA

analysis. Biological Conservation 183:29-37.

Larson et al. 2017. Environmental DNA (eDNA) detects the invasive crayfishes Orconectes rusticus and

Pacifastacus leniusculus in large lakes of North America. Hydrobiologia. DOI: 10.1007/s10750-

017-3210-7

Lim et al. 2016. Next-generation freshwater bioassessment: eDNA metabarcoding with a conserved

metazoan primer reveals species-rich and reservoir-specific communities. Royal Society Open

Science. 3:160635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160635

Lobo et al. 2017. DNA metabarcoding for high-throughput monitoring of estuarine macrobenthic

communities. bioRxiv DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/117168

Lodge et al. 2012. Conservation in a cup of water: estimating biodiversity and population abundance from

environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology 21: 2555-2558.

Ma et al. 2016. Characterization, optimization, and validation of environmental DNA (eDNA) markers to

detect an endangered aquatic mammal. Conservation Genetics Resources. DOI: 10.1007/s12686-016-

0597-9.

MacDonald and Sarre. 2016. A framework for developing and validating taxon-specific primers for

specimen identification from environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology Resources. DOI: 10.1111/1755-

0998.12618.

MacDonald et al. 2014. Primers for detection of Macquarie perch from environmental and trace DNA

samples. Conservation Genetics Resources, 6(3): 551-553. DOI:10.1007/s12686-014-0196-6.

Mächler and Leese. 2017. Environmental DNA metabarcoding of rivers: Not all eDNA is everywhere,

and not all the time. bioRxiv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/164046

Mächler et al. 2015. Fishing in the water: effect of sampled water volume on environmental DNA-based

detection of macroinvertebrates. Environ Sci Technol. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.5b04188.

Mächler et al. 2014. Utility of environmental DNA for monitoring rare and indicator macroinvertebrate

species. Freshwater Science DOI: 10.1086/678128

Mahon et al. 2013. Validation of eDNA Surveillance Sensitivity for Detection of Asian Carps in

Controlled and Field Experiments. Liles MR, editor. PLoS One. 8:e58316.

Mahon et al. 2014. Meta-genomic surveillance of invasive species in the bait trade. Conservation

Genetics Resources 6:563–567.

Mahon and Jerde. 2015. Using Environmental DNA for Invasive Species Surveillance and Monitoring.

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-3774-5_8. In book: Marine Genomics, pp.131-142

Maruyama et al. 2014. The release rate of environmental DNA from juvenile and adult fish. PLoS One

9:e11463.

Masayuki et al. 2017. Identifying a breeding habitat of a critically endangered fish, Acheilognathus

typus, in a natural river in Japan. The Science of Nature. 104:100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-

017-1521-1.

Matter et al. 2017. A Rapid Assessment Method to Estimate the Distribution of Juvenile Chinook Salmon

in Tributary Habitats Using eDNA and Occupancy Estimation. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management. DOI: 10.1002/nafm.10014

Matuhashi et al. 2016. Evaluation of the Environmental DNA Method for Estimating Distribution and

Biomass of Submerged Aquatic Plants. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0156217.


Mauvisseau et al. 2017. Environmental DNA as an efficient tool for detecting invasive crayfishes in

freshwater ponds. Hydrobiologia. 1-3.

Mauvisseau et al. 2017. On the way for detecting and quantifyingelusive species in the sea: The Octopus

vulgaris case study. Fisheries Research. DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2017.02.023.

McKelvey et al. 2016. Sampling large geographic areas for rare species using environmental DNA

(eDNA): a study of bull trout occupancy in western Montana. Journal of Fish Biology. 1-8.

DOI:10.1111/jfb.12863.

Minamoto et al. 2016. Nuclear internal transcribed spacer‐1 as a sensitive genetic marker for

environmental DNA studies in common carp Cyprinus carpio. Molecular Ecology Resources.

DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12586.

Minamoto et al. 2012. Surveillance of fish species composition using environmental DNA. Limnology

13: DOI: 10.1007/s10201-011-0362-4.

Minamoto et al. 2015. Techniques for the practical collection of environmental DNA: filter selection,

preservation, and extraction. Limnology DOI:10.1007/s10201-015-0457-4.

Miralles et al. 2016. Controlling populations of invasive pygmy mussel (Xenostrobus securis) through

citizen science and environmental DNA. Marine Science Bulletin. 110(1).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.072

Miya et al. 2016. Use of a Filter Cartridge for Filtration of Water Samples and Extraction of

Environmental DNA. Journal of Visualized Experpiments (JoVE): 117. DOI: 10.3791/54741.

Miya et al. 2015. MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from

fishes: detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. Royal Society Open Science

2:150088.

Mizumoto et al. 2017. Establishing an environmental DNA method to detect and estimate the biomass of

Sakhalin taimen, a critically endangered Asian salmonid. Limnology.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-017-0535-x

Mosher et al. 2017. Design- and model-based recommendations for detecting and quantifying an

amphibian pathogen in environmental samples. Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3616

Moyer et al. 2014. Assessing environmental DNA detection in controlled lentic systems. PLoS One

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-017-0535-x

9:e103767.

Muha et al. 2017. Using environmental DNA to improve Species Distribution Models for freshwater

invaders. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2017.00158

Muñoz-Colmenero et al. 2017. New specific molecular marker detects Ficopomatus enigmaticus from

water eDNA before positive results of conventional sampling. Journal of Nature Conservation.

Nakawaga et al. 2018. Comparing local- and regional-scale estimations of the diversity of stream fish

using eDNA metabarcoding and conventional observation methods. Freshwater Biology. DOI:

10.1111/fwb.13094

Nathan et al. 2015. The use of environmental DNA in invasive species surveillance of the Great Lakes

commercial bait trade. Conservation Biology 29:430-439.

Nathan et al. 2014. Quantifying environmental DNA signals for aquatic invasive species across multiple

detection platforms. Environmental Science & Technology 48:12800-12806.

Nevers et al. 2018. Environmental DNA (eDNA): A tool for quantifying the abundant but elusive round

goby (Neogobius melanostomus). PLoS ONE 13(1): e0191720.


Newton et al. 2006. Potential utility of environmental DNA for early detection of Eurasian watermilfoil

(Myriophyllum spicatum). Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 54:46–49.

Niemiller et al. 2017. Evaluation of eDNA for groundwater invertebrate detection and monitoring: a case

study with endangered Stygobromus (Amphipoda: Crangonyctidae). Conservation Genet

Resources. DOI:10.1007/s12686-017-0785-2

O'Donnell et al. 2017. Spatial distribution of environmental DNA in a nearshore marine habitat. PeerJ

PubMed 28265513

O'Donnell et al. 2016. Indexed PCR Primers Induce Template-Specific Bias in Large-Scale DNA

Sequencing Studies. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0148698. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0148698.

Olds et al. 2016. Estimating species richness using environmental DNA. Ecology and Evolution.

DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2186.

Olson et al. 2012. An eDNA approach to detect eastern hellbenders (Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis)

using samples of water. Wildlife Research 39:629–636.

Olsen et al. 2015. An evaluation of target specificity and sensitivity of three qPCR assays for detecting

environmental DNA from Northern Pike (Esox lucius). Conservation Genetics Resources 7:615-

617.

Padgett-Stewart et al. 2015. An eDNA assay for river otter detection: a tool for surveying a semi-aquatic

mammal. Conservation Genetics Resources 8: 5-7. DOI:10.1007/s12686-015-0511-x PDF

Paronda et al. 2018. Citizen warnings and post checkout molecular confirmations using eDNA as a

combined strategy for updating invasive species distributions. Journal for Nature Conservation.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2018.02.006

Perez et al. 2017. Comparison of American Fisheries Society (AFS) Standard Fish Sampling Techniques

and Environmental DNA for Characterizing Fish Communities in a Large Reservoir. North

American J of Fisheries Management.

Pfleger et al. 2016. Saving the doomed: Using eDNA to aid in detection of rare sturgeon for conservation

(Acipenseridae). Global Ecology and Conservation 8:99–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2016.08.008.

Piaggio et al. 2013. Detecting an elusive invasive species: a diagnostic PCR to detect Burmese python in

Florida waters and an assessment of persistence of environmental DNA. Molecular ecology

Resources 14:374–80.

Piaggio et al. 2016. No filters, no fridges: a method for preservation of water samples for eDNA analysis.

BMC Researcg Notes. 9(298). DOI: 10.1186/s13104-016-2104-5.

Pie et al. 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. 89:2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720160723

Pierson et al. 2016. Detection of an Enigmatic Plethodontid Salamander Using Environmental DNA.

Copeia 2016 (1):78-82. DOI: doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1643/CH-14-202.

Piggot. 2016. Evaluating the effects of laboratory protocols on eDNA detection probability for an

endangered freshwater fish. Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2083.

Pilliod et al. 2013. Estimating occupancy and abundance of stream amphibians using environmental DNA

from filtered water samples. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 70:1123–1130.

Pilliod et al. 2014. Factors influencing detection of eDNA from a stream‐dwelling amphibian. Molecular

Ecology Resources 14:109-116.

Pitt et al. 2017. Decline of a giant salamander assessed with historical records,environmental DNA and

multi-scale habitat data. Freshwater Ecology. Early view.

Pochon et al. 2017. Wanted dead or alive? Using metabarcoding of environmental DNA and RNA to

distinguish living assemblages for biosecurity applications. PLoS ONE. 12(11): e0187636.


Rees et al. 2017. The detection of great crested newts year round via environmental DNA analysis. BMC

Research Notes. 10:327. DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2657-y

Rees et al. 2014. The application of eDNA for monitoring of the Great Crested Newt in the UK. Ecology

and Evolution 4:4023-4032.

Rees et al. 2014. REVIEW: The detection of aquatic animal species using environmental DNA–a review

of eDNA as a survey tool in ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology 51:1450-1459.

Renan et al. 2017. Living quarters of a living fossil‐Uncovering the current distribution pattern of the

rediscovered Hula painted frog (Latonia nigriventer) using environmental DNA. Molecular

Ecology. DOI: 10.1111/mec.14420

Renshaw et al. 2014. The room temperature preservation of filtered environmental DNA samples and

assimilation into a phenol-chloroform-isoamyl alcohol DNA extraction. Molecular Ecology

Resources 15:168–176.

Rice et al. 2018. Environmental DNA detects a rare large river crayfish but with little relation to local

abundance. Freshwater Biology. DOI: 10.1111/fwb.13081

Robson et al. 2016. Fine tuning for the tropics: application of eDNA technology for invasive fish

detection in tropical freshwater ecosystems. Molecular Ecology Resources. DOI: 10.1111/1755-

0998.12505

Rodgers et al. 2017. Quantitative PCR assays for detection of five Alaskan fish species: Lota lota,

Salvelinus alpinus, Salvelinus malma, Thymallus arcticus, and Cottus cognatus from

environmental DNA. bioRxiv. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/116053

Roy et al. 2017. Development of environmental DNA (eDNA) methods for detecting high-risk freshwater

fishes in live trade in Canada. Biological Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1532-z

Roussel et al. 2015. The downside of eDNA as a survey tool in water bodies. Journal of Applied Ecology,

52(4):823-826.

Salter. 2018. Seasonal variability in the persistence of dissolved environmental DNA (eDNA) in a marine

system: The role of microbial nutrient limitation. PLoS ONE 13(2): e0192409.


Sansom et al. 2017. Environmental DNA (eDNA) shedding and decay rates to model freshwater mussel

eDNA transport in a river. Environmental Science and Technology.

DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05199

Santas et al. 2013. Noninvasive Method for a Statewide Survey of Eastern Hellbenders Cryptobranchus

alleganiensis Using Environmental DNA. International Journal of Zoology

DOI:10.1155/2013/174056

Sasso et al. 2017. Environmental DNA characterization of amphibian communities in the Brazilian

Atlantic forest: Potential application for conservation of a rich and threatened fauna. Biological

Conservation. 215:225-32. DOI10.1016/j.biocon.2017.09.015

Sassoubre et al. 2016. Quantification of environmental DNA (eDNA) shedding and decay rates for three

marine fish. Environmental Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03114.

Sato et al. 2017. Usefulness and limitations of sample pooling for environmental DNA metabarcoding of

freshwater fish communities. Scientific Reports. 7:13860. DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-14978-6

Schmelzle et al. 2016. Using occupancy modeling to compare environmental DNA to traditional field

methods for regional-scale monitoring of an endangered aquatic species. Molecular Ecology

Resources. DOI:10.1111/1755-0998.12501.

Schultz. 2018. Inference of genetic marker concentrations from field surveys to detect environmental

DNA using Bayesian updating. PLoS ONE 13(1): e0190603.


Schultz MT, Lance RF. Modeling the Sensitivity of Field Surveys for Detection of Environmental DNA

(eDNA). PLoS One. 2015;10: e0141503. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141503.

Schneider et al. 2016. Detection of Invasive Mosquito Vectors Using Environmental DNA (eDNA) from

Water Samples. PLoS ONE. 11(9): e0162493. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162493.

Scriver et al. 2015. Development of species-specific environmental DNA (eDNA) markers for invasive

aquatic plants. Aquatic Botany 122:27-31.

Secondi et al. 2016. Detection of a global aquatic invasive amphibian, Xenopus laevis, using

environmental DNA. Amphibia-Reptilia 37(1):131-136.

Serrao et al. 2017. Establishing detection thresholds for environmental DNA using receiver operator

characteristic (ROC) curves. Conservation Genetics Resources. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-

017-0817-y

Seymour et al. 2018. Acidity promotes degradation of multi-species environmental DNA in lotic

mesocosms. Communications Biology. 1(4). doi:10.1038/s42003-017-0005-3

Shaw et al. 2016. Comparison of environmental DNA metabarcoding and conventional fish survey

methods in a river system. Biological Conservation. 197: 131 - 138.

Shelton et al. in press. A framework for inferring biological communities from environmental DNA.

Ecological Applications.

Shogren et al. in press. Modelling the transport of environmental DNA through a porous substrate using

continuous flow-through column experiments. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. DOI:

10.1098/rsif.2016.0290.

Sigsgaard et al. 2017. Seawater environmental DNA reflects seasonality of a coastal fish community.

Marine Biology. 164: 128. DOI:10.1007/s00227-017-3147-4

Sigsgaard et al. 2016. Population characteristics of a large whale shark aggregation inferred from

seawater environmental DNA. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1:0004. DOI:10.1038/s41559-016-0004.

Sigsgaard et al. 2014. Monitoring the near-extinct European weather loach in Denmark based on

environmental DNA from water samples. Biological Conservation 183 DOI:

10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.023x.

Simmons et al. 2015. Active and passive environmental DNA surveillance of aquatic invasive species.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2015-0262

Smart et al . 2016. Assessing the cost-efficiency of environmental DNA sampling. Methods in Ecology

and Evolution. 7(11). DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12598.

Smart et al. 2015. Environmental DNA sampling is more sensitive than traditional survey technique for

detecting an aquatic invader. Ecological Applications 25:1944-1952.

Smith. 2017. Biodiversity monitoring using environmental DNA: Can it detect all fish species in a

waterbody and is it cost effective for routine monitoring?. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1985

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-

Smith. 2017. SEASONAL COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL DNA AND TRADITIONAL

SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR DETECTING COASTAL TAILED FROGS (ASCAPHUS TRUEI) IN

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. Thesis at Humboldt State University.

Song et al. 2017. Making sense of the noise: The effect of hydrology on silver carp eDNA detection in the

Chicago area waterway system. Sci Total Environ. 605-606:713-720. doi:

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.255

Spangler et al. 2017. Application of environmental DNA-based occurrence data in modeling wood frog

(Rana sylvatica) distribution in Interior Alaska.

Spangler et al. 2017. Development, validation, and evaluation of an assay for the detection of wood frogs

(Rana sylvatica) in environmental DNA. Conservation Genetics Resources.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-017-0881-3

Spens et al. 2016. Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an

optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter. Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12683.

Spear et al. 2015. Using environmental DNA methods to improve detectability in a hellbender

(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) monitoring program. Biological Conservation 183:38-45.

Sipendorfer et al. 2016. Environmental DNA detects Critically Endangered largetooth sawfish in the wild.

Endangered Species Research. 39:109-116.

Stat et al. 2017. Ecosystem biomonitoring with eDNA: metabarcoding across the tree of life in a tropical

marine environment. Scientific Reports 7(1):12240.

Stedman et al. 2016. Phylogeographic and Environmental DNA Analysis of the Mudpuppy (Necturus

maculosus maculosus). Thesis

Stoeck et al. 2018. Metabarcoding of benthic ciliate communities shows high potential for environmental

monitoring in salmon aquaculture. Ecological Indicators. 85:153-64.

Stoeckle et al. 2017. A systematic approach to evaluate the influence of environmental conditions on

eDNA detection success in aquatic ecosystems. PLoS ONE 12(12): e0189119.


Stoeckle et al. 2015. Environmental DNA as a monitoring tool for the endangered freshwater pearl mussel

(Margaritifera margaritifera L.): a substitute for classical monitoring approaches? Aquat

Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. DOI:10.1002/aqc.2611.

Stoeckle et al. 2017. Aquatic environmental DNA detects seasonal fish abundance and habitat preference

in an urban estuary. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0175186. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0175186

Strickler et al. 2015. Quantifying effects of UV-B, temperature, and pH on eDNA degradation in aquatic

microcosms. Biological Conservation 183:85-92.

Strobel et al. 2017. Exploring the use of Environmental DNA to Determine the Species of Salmon redds.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management. DOI: 10.1080/02755947.2017.1335254


Takahara et al. 2013. Using environmental DNA to estimate the distribution of an invasive fish species in

ponds. PLoS One 8:e56584.

Takahara et al. 2012. Estimation of fish biomass using environmental DNA. PLoS One 7:e35868.

Takahara et al. 2014. Effects of sample processing on the detection rate of environmental DNA from the

Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio). Biological Conservation 183:64–69.

Takahashi et al. 2017. Seasonal and diel signature of eastern hellbender environmental DNA. The Journal

of Wildlife Management. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21349

Thomas et al. 2016. DNA-based identification of invasive alien species in relation to Canadian federal

policy and law, and the basis of rapid-response management. Genome.

DOI:10.1139/gen-2016-0022

Thomsen et al. 2016. Environmental DNA from Seawater Samples Correlate with Trawl Catches of

Subarctic, Deepwater Fishes. PLoS ONE 11(11): e0165252. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0165252.

Thomsen et al. 2012b. Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA.

Molecular Ecology 21:2565–2573.

Thomsen et al. 2015. Environmental DNA – An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and

present biodiversity. Biological Conservation 183: 4–18.

Tiam et al. 2017. qPCR detection versus microscopy observations for assessing presence–absence of

Didymosphenia geminata in Quebec rivers (Canada). Water Quality Research Journal. DOI:

10.2166/wqrj.2017.030

Tillotson et al. 2018. Concentrations of environmental DNA (eDNA) reflect spawning salmon abundance

at fine spatial and temporal scales. Biological Conservation. 220.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.030

Torresdal & Goldberg CS. 2017. Environmental DNA Detection of the Golden Tree Frog (Phytotriades

auratus) in Bromeliads. PLoS ONE 12(1): e0168787. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0168787

Tucker et al. 2016. A sensitive environmental DNA (eDNA) assay leads to new insights on Ruffe

(Gymnocephalus cernua) spread in North America. Biological Invasions.18: 3205.

doi:10.1007/s10530-016-1209-z

Turner et al. 2014A. Particle size distribution and optimal capture of aqueous macrobial eDNA. Methods

in Ecology and Evolution 5:676-684.

Turner et al. 2014B. Improved Methods for Capture, Extraction, and Quantitative Assay of

Environmental DNA from Asian Bigheaded Carp (Hypophthalmichthys spp.). PLoS One 9:e114329.

Turner et al. 2015. Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface

water. Biological Conservation 183:93-102.

Tsuji et al. 2017. Water temperature-dependent degradation of environmental DNA and its relation to

bacterial abundance. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0176608. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0176608

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.030

Tsuji et al. 2016. Effects of water pH and proteinase K treatment on the yield of environmental DNA

from water samples. Liminology. DOI: 10.1007/s10201-016-0483-x.

Uchii et al. 2017. Distinct season migration patterns of Japanese native and non-native genotypes of

common carp estimated by environmental DNA. Ecology and Evolution. DOI:

10.1002/ece3.3346

Ulibarri et al. 2017. Comparing Efficiency of American Fisheries Society Standard Snorkeling

Techniques to Environmental DNA Sampling Techniques. North American J of Fisheries

Management. 37(3):644-51.

Ushio et al. 2017. Quantitative monitoring of multispecies fish environmental DNA using high-

throughput sequencing. bioRxiv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/113472

Ushio et al. 2017. Environmental DNA enables detection of terrestrial mammals from forest pond water.

Molecular Ecology Resources. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12690

Valentini et al. 2015. Next‐generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA

metabarcoding. Molecular ecology DOI: 10.1111/mec.13428.

Veldhoen et al. 2016. Implementation of novel design features for qpcr-based eDNA assessment. PLoS

ONE. 11(11):e0164907. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0164907

Ventura et al. 2017. Tracing the quagga mussel invasion along the Rhine river system using eDNA

markers: early detection and surveillance of invasive zebra and quagga mussels. Management of

Biological Invasions. 8.

Wegleitner et al. 2015. Long duration, room temperature preservation of filtered eDNA samples.

Conservation Genetics Resources doi.org/10.1007/s12686-015-0483-x.

Weltz etal. 2017. Application of environmental DNA to detect an endangered marine skate species in the

wild. PLoS ONE 12(6): e0178124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0178124

Wilcox et al. 2016. Understanding environmental DNA detection probabilities: a case study using a

stream-dwelling char Salvelinus fontinalis. Biological Conservation. 194:209-216.

DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.023.

Wilcox et al. 2015. The Dual Challenges of Generality and Specificity When Developing Environmental

DNA Markers for Species and Subspecies of Oncorhynchus. PLoS ONE 1–13.


Wilcox et al. 2015. Environmental DNA particle size distribution from Brook Trout (Salvelinus

fontinalis). Conservation Genetics Resources 7:639-641. PDF

Wilcox et al. 2014. A blocking primer increases specificity in environmental DNA detection of bull trout

(Salvelinus confluentus). Conservation Genetics Resources 6:283-284. PDF

Wilcox et al. 2013. Robust detection of rare species using environmental DNA: the importance of primer

specificity. PLoS One 8:e59520.

Williams et al. 2017. Isothermal amplification of environmental DNA (eDNA) for direct field-based

monitoring and laboratory confirmation of Dreissena sp. PLoS ONE. 12(10): e0186462

Williams et al. 2017. Detection and persistence of environmental DNA from an invasive, terrestrial

mammal. Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3698.

Williams et al. 2017. Clearing muddied waters: Capture of environmental DNA from turbid waters.

PLoS ONE 12(7): e0179282. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179282

Willoughby et al. 2016. The importance of including imperfect detection models in eDNA experimental

design. Molecular Ecology Resources. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12531.

Wilson et al. 2017. Tracking the southern river terrapin (Batagur affinis) through environmental DNA:

prospects and challenges. Mitochondrial DNA Part A.

https://doi.org/10.1080/24701394.2017.1373109

Wilson et al. 2015. Tracking ghosts: combined electrofishing and environmental DNA surveillance efforts

for Asian carps in Ontario waters of Lake Erie. Management of Biological Invasions 5:225-231.

Wilson et al. 2015. Recognizing false positives: Synthetic oligonucleotide controls for environmental

DNA surveillance. Methods Ecol Evol. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12452

Wozney and Wilson. 2017. Quantitative PCR multiplexes for simultaneous multispecies detection of

Asian carp eDNA. Journal of Great Lakes Research.

Yamanaka et al. 2016. A simple method for preserving environmental DNA in water samples at ambient

temperature by addition of cationic surfactant. Limnology. DOI 10.1007/s10201-016-0508-5.

Yamamoto et al. 2017. Environmental DNA metabarcoding reveals local fish communities in a species-

rich coastal sea. Scientific Reports. 7:40368. DOI:10.1038/srep40368.

Yamamoto et al. 2016. Environmental DNA as a ‘Snapshot’ of Fish Distribution: A Case Study of

Japanese Jack Mackerel in Maizuru Bay, Sea of Japan. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0149786.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149786.

https://doi.org/10.1080/24701394.2017.1373109

Documents

Aqueous macrobial eDNA bibliography · Biggs et al. 2015. Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)