Environmental DNA monitoring of species presence during aquatic habitat restoration Gary M. Clark 1, Cameron R. Turner2,3, David M. Lodge2,3 1. Environmental DNA Solutions, Granger, IN 2. Center for Aquatic Conservation, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 3. Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN Objectives 1. Environmental DNA overview 2. “eDNA” surveillance applications 3. Ozaukee County eDNA surveillance plan Myriad factors Stakeholder Success Aesthetics Economic Benefits Recreation Education Ecological Success Guiding image exists Learning Success Ecological improvement Scientific contribution Self-sustaining Management experience No lasting harm done Improve methods Assessment completed Stream Barrier Removal Palmer et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. How do you measure success? Fish passage & occupancy – a critical monitoring parameter Visual snorkel survey, ladder count, creel survey Electrofishing E-boat, backpack shocker Video Vaki RiverWatcher Mark & recapture Fin clip, external tag, CWT Telemetry Radio tag, acoustic tag, satellite tag Environmental DNA Genetic “fingerprints” in Water Column What is Environmental (e)DNA? • Require Direct Observation • “Non-invasive” genetic sampling How about aquatic eDNA? • Fish naturally shed DNA • Epithelial Cells • Feces, urine • Milt • Some cellular material will be carried in suspension and can be collected for analysis The eDNA methodology The presence of individual species can be detected by filtering water samples, and then extracting and amplifying short fragments of the shed DNA. Gel electrophoresis • Positive controls • Negative controls • Band location 8 Objectives 1. Environmental DNA overview 2. “eDNA” surveillance applications 3. Ozaukee County eDNA surveillance plan eDNA surveillance in action • Spatial and temporal distribution • Positive and negative reach concurrence Environmental DNA results (June 2009 – August 2010) Areas with positive detections on: one date two dates three or more dates Electric barriers Illinois N Indiana Objectives 1. Environmental DNA overview 2. “eDNA” surveillance applications 3. Ozaukee County eDNA surveillance plan Ozaukee County eDNA Plan • Upstream migration of fish in lower Milwaukee River watershed stops at the Bridge Street Dam in Grafton, WI Ozaukee County eDNA Plan • Construction of fish passage through the dam will allow migration into the upper watershed Myriad factors 1. Did it work? Stakeholder Success 2. How soon Aesthetics did it start Economic Benefits Recreation working? Education Ecological Success Guiding image exists Learning Success Ecological improvement Scientific contribution Self-sustaining Management experience No lasting harm done Improve methods Assessment completed Stream Barrier Removal Palmer et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. Ozaukee County eDNA Plan • Target Species: Chinook salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha) • Only present in lower watershed • Strong Migratory Behavior Ozaukee County eDNA Plan 1. Confirm Chinook presence in lower watershed 2. Confirm Chinook absence in upper watershed 3. Continue Chinook monitoring in upper watershed after fish passage construction Advantages of eDNA surveillance • Non-Invasive Sampling “Sight Unseen” • Sensitivity, Specificity, Low Cost and Rapid Reporting. • Effective “early warning indicator” of presence at low densities • An EPA laboratory audit report states that the method is “reporting a pattern of detection that should be considered actionable in a management context.” Questions? Gary M. Clark www.eDNASolutions.net [email protected] (773) 234-eDNA (3362) .