Background: Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is increasingly being used to detect the presence and relative abundance of rare species, especially invasive or imperiled aquatic species. The rapid progress in the eDNA field has resulted in numerous studies impacting conservation and management actions. However, standardization of eDNA methods and reporting across the field is yet to be fully established, with one area being the calculation and interpretation of assay limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ).Aims: Here, we propose establishing consistent methods for determining and reporting of LOD and LOQ for single‐species quantitative PCR (qPCR) eDNA studies.Materials & Methods/ Results: We utilize datasets from multiple cooperating laboratories to demonstrate both a discrete threshold approach and a curve‐fitting modeling approach for determining LODs and LOQs for eDNA qPCR assays. We also provide details of an R script developed and applied for the modeling method.Discussion/Conclusions: Ultimately, standardization of how LOD and LOQ are determined, interpreted, and reported for eDNA assays will allow for more informed interpretation of assay results, more meaningful interlaboratory comparisons of experiments, and enhanced capacity for assessing the relative technical quality and performance of different eDNA qPCR assays.

The prevention of non-indigenous aquatic invasive species spreading into new areas is a goal of many resource managers. New techniques have been developed to survey for species that are difficult to capture with conventional gears that involve the detection of their DNA in water samples (eDNA). This technique is currently used to track the invasion of bigheaded carps (silver carp and bighead carp; Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and H. nobilis) in the Chicago Area Waterway System and Upper Mississippi River. In both systems DNA has been detected from silver carp without the capture of a live fish, which has led to some uncertainty about the source of the DNA. The potential contribution to eDNA by vectors and fomites has not been explored. Because barges move from areas with a high abundance of bigheaded carps to areas monitored for the potential presence of silver carp, we used juvenile silver carp to simulate the barge transport of dead bigheaded carp carcasses, slime residue, and predator feces to determine the potential of these sources to supply DNA to uninhabited waters where it could be detected and misinterpreted as indicative of the presence of live bigheaded carp. Our results indicate that all three vectors are feasible sources of detectable eDNA for at least one month after their deposition. This suggests that current monitoring programs must consider alternative vectors of DNA in the environment and consider alternative strategies to minimize the detection of DNA not directly released from live bigheaded carps.

Bigheaded carps are invasive fishes threatening to invade the Great Lakes basin and establish spawning populations, and have been monitored using environmental DNA (eDNA). Not only does eDNA hold potential for detecting the presence of species, but may also allow for quantitative comparisons like relative abundance of species across time or space. We examined the relationships among bigheaded carp movement, hydrography, spawning and eDNA on the Wabash River, IN, USA. We found positive relationships between eDNA and movement and eDNA and hydrography. We did not find a relationship between eDNA and spawning activity in the form of drifting eggs. Our first finding demonstrates how eDNA may be used to monitor species abundance, whereas our second finding illustrates the need for additional research into eDNA methodologies. Current applications of eDNA are widespread, but the relatively new technology requires further refinement.

Environmental DNA (eDNA) and RNA (eRNA) metabarcoding has become a popular tool for assessing biodiversity from environmental samples, but inconsistent documentation of methods, data and metadata makes results difficult to reproduce and synthesise. A working group of scientists have collaborated to produce a set of minimum reporting guidelines for the constituent steps of metabarcoding workflows, from the physical layout of laboratories through to data archiving. We emphasise how reporting the suite of data and metadata should adhere to findable, accessible, interoperable and reproducible (FAIR) data standards, thereby providing context for evaluating and understanding study results. An overview of the documentation considerations for each workflow step is presented and then summarised in a checklist that can accompany a published study or report. Ensuring workflows are transparent and documented is critical to reproducible research and should allow for more efficient uptake of metabarcoding data into management decision-making.