Buxton, Andrew S., Groombridge, Jim J., Griffiths, Richard A. (2018) Comparison of two Citizen Scientist Methods for Collecting Pond Water Samples for Environmental DNA Studies. Ctizen Science: Theory and Practice, 3 (2). Article Number 2. ISSN 2057-4991. E-ISSN 2057-4991. (doi:10.5334/cstp.151) (KAR id:67441)
This is the latest version of this item.
PDF
Publisher pdf
Language: English
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
|
|
Download this file (PDF/611kB) |
Preview |
Request a format suitable for use with assistive technology e.g. a screenreader | |
PDF (Author accepted manuscript with tables)
Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English Restricted to Repository staff only |
|
Contact us about this Publication
|
|
PDF
Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English Restricted to Repository staff only |
|
Contact us about this Publication
|
|
Microsoft Word
Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English Restricted to Repository staff only |
|
Contact us about this Publication
|
|
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.151 |
Abstract
The use of environmental DNA (eDNA) for the survey of aquatic species offers a wide range of benefits over conventional surveys and has begun to be used by citizen scientists. One advantage of eDNA over conventional survey protocols is the comparative ease with which samples can be collected over a wide geographic area by citizen scientists. However, eDNA collection protocols vary widely between different studies, promoting a need to identify an optimum method. Collection protocols include ethanol precipitation and various filtration methods including those that use electronic vacuum or peristaltic pumps, hand pumps or syringes to capture eDNA on a membrane. We compare the effectiveness of two eDNA collection methods suitable for use by citizen scientists: glass-microfiber syringe filtration and ethanol precipitation. Paired samples of water were analysed for great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) DNA using (1) a laboratory tank experiment using different dilutions of water inoculated with newt DNA; and (2) by sampling naturally colonised ponds. Although syringe filters consistently yielded greater DNA extract concentrations in the tank experiments, this was not the case in samples collected from the field where no difference between the two methods was identified. Clearly, properties within the water – such as algae and particulate matter - can influence the amount of DNA captured by the two methods, so the sampling protocol of choice will depend on the design and goals of the study.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
DOI/Identification number: | 10.5334/cstp.151 |
Uncontrolled keywords: | environmental DNA, syringe filters, ethanol precipitation, laboratory tanks, pond, citizen science |
Subjects: | Q Science > QL Zoology |
Divisions: | Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > DICE (Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology) |
Depositing User: | Richard Griffiths |
Date Deposited: | 28 Jun 2018 13:19 UTC |
Last Modified: | 05 Nov 2024 11:07 UTC |
Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/67441 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
Available versions of this item
-
Comparison of two Citizen Scientist Methods for Collecting Pond Water Samples for Environmental DNA Studies. (deposited 28 Jun 2018 13:14)
- Comparison of two Citizen Scientist Methods for Collecting Pond Water Samples for Environmental DNA Studies. (deposited 28 Jun 2018 13:19) [Currently Displayed]
- Link to SensusAccess
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):