Comparing the effectiveness of environmental DNA and camera traps for surveying American mink (Neogale vison) in northeastern Indiana.

Autor: Di Girolamo EL; Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, Indiana, United States of America., Jordan MA; Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, Indiana, United States of America., Albers G; Division of Fish and Wildlife, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America., Bergeson SM; Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, Indiana, United States of America.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: PloS one [PLoS One] 2024 Sep 23; Vol. 19 (9), pp. e0310888. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 23 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310888
Abstrakt: While camera traps can effectively detect semi-aquatic mammal species, they are also often temporally and monetarily inefficient and have a difficult time detecting smaller bodied, elusive mammals. Recent studies have shown that extracting DNA from environmental samples can be a non-invasive, alternative method of detecting elusive species. Environmental DNA (eDNA) has not yet been used to survey American mink (Neogale vison), a cryptic and understudied North American mustelid. To help determine best survey practices for the species, we compared the effectiveness and efficiency of eDNA and camera traps in surveys for American mink. We used both methods to monitor the shoreline of seven bodies of water in northeastern Indiana from March to May 2021. We extracted DNA from filtered environmental water samples and used quantitative real-time PCR to determine the presence of mink at each site. We used Akaike's Information Criterion to rank probability of detection models with and without survey method as a covariate. We detected mink at four of the seven sites and seven of the 21 total survey weeks using camera traps (probability of detection (ρ) = 0.36). We detected mink at five sites and during five survey weeks using eDNA (ρ = 0.25). However, the highest probability of detection was obtained when both methods were combined, and data were pooled (ρ = 0.47). Survey method did not influence model fit, suggesting no difference in detectability between camera traps and eDNA. Environmental DNA was twice as expensive, but only required a little over half (58%) of the time when compared to camera trapping. We recommend ways in which an improved eDNA methodology may be more cost effective for future studies. For this study, a combination of both methods yielded the highest probability for detecting mink presence.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
(Copyright: © 2024 Di Girolamo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje