Summary: Species detection using environmental DNA (eDNA) has tremendous potential for contributing to the understanding of the ecology and conservation of aquatic species. Detecting species using eDNA methods, rather than directly sampling the organisms, can reduce impacts on sensitive species and increase the power of field surveys for rare and elusive species. The sensitivity of eDNA methods, however, requires a heightened awareness and attention to quality assurance and quality control protocols. Additionally, the interpretation of eDNA data demands careful consideration of multiple factors. As eDNA methods have grown in application, diverse approaches have been implemented to address these issues. With interest in eDNA continuing to expand, supportive guidelines for undertaking eDNA studies are greatly needed. Environmental DNA researchers from around the world have collaborated to produce this set of guidelines and considerations for implementing eDNA methods to detect aquatic macroorganisms. Critical considerations for study design include preventing contamination in the field and the laboratory, choosing appropriate sample analysis methods, validating assays, testing for sample inhibition and following minimum reporting guidelines. Critical considerations for inference include temporal and spatial processes, limits of correlation of eDNA with abundance, uncertainty of positive and negative results, and potential sources of allochthonous DNA. We present a synthesis of knowledge at this stage for application of this new and powerful detection method.

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.

Describing and monitoring biodiversity comprise integral parts of ecosystem management. Recent research coupling metabarcoding and environmental DNA (eDNA) demonstrate that these methods can serve as important tools for surveying biodiversity, while significantly decreasing the time, expense and resources spent on traditional survey methods. The literature emphasizes the importance of genetic marker development, as the markers dictate the applicability, sensitivity and resolution ability of an eDNA assay. The present study developed two metabarcoding eDNA assays using the mtDNA 16S RNA gene with Illumina MiSeq platform to detect invertebrate fauna in the Laurentian Great Lakes and surrounding waterways, with a focus for use on invasive bivalve and gastropod species monitoring. We employed careful primer design and in vitro testing with mock communities to assess ability of the markers to amplify and sequence targeted species DNA, while retaining rank abundance information. In our mock communities, read abundances reflected the initial input abundance, with regressions having significant slopes (p<0.05) and high coefficients of determination (R²) for all comparisons. Tests on field environmental samples revealed similar ability of our markers to measure relative abundance. Due to the limited reference sequence data available for these invertebrate species, care must be taken when analyzing results and identifying sequence reads to species level. These markers extend eDNA metabarcoding research for molluscs and appear relevant to other invertebrate taxa, such as rotifers and bryozoans. Furthermore, the sphaeriid mussel assay is group-specific, exclusively amplifying bivalves in the Sphaeridae family and providing species-level identification. Our assays provide useful tools for managers and conservation scientists, facilitating early detection of invasive species as well as improving resolution of mollusc diversity.

Following decades of ecologic and economic impacts from a growing list of nonindigenous and invasive species, government and management entities are committing to systematic early- detection monitoring (EDM). This has reinvigorated investment in the science underpinning such monitoring, as well as the need to convey that science in practical terms to those tasked with EDM implementation. Using the context of nonindigenous species in the North American Great Lakes, this article summarizes the current scientific tools and knowledge - including limitations, research needs, and likely future developments - relevant to various aspects of planning and conducting comprehensive EDM. We begin with the scope of the effort, contrasting target-species with broad-spectrum monitoring, reviewing information to support prioritization based on species and locations, and exploring the challenge of moving beyond individual surveys towards a coordinated monitoring network. Next, we discuss survey design, including effort to expend and its allocation over space and time. A section on sample collection and analysis overviews the merits of collecting actual organisms versus shed DNA, reviews the capabilities and limitations of identification by morphology, DNA target markers, or DNA barcoding, and examines best practices for sample handling and data verification. We end with a section addressing the analysis of monitoring data, including methods to evaluate survey performance and characterize and communicate uncertainty. Although the body of science supporting EDM implementation is already substantial, research and information needs (many already actively being addressed) include: better data to support risk assessments that guide choice of taxa and locations to monitor; improved understanding of spatiotemporal scales for sample collection; further development of DNA target markers, reference barcodes, genomic workflows, and synergies between DNA-based and morphology-based taxonomy; and tools and information management systems for better evaluating and communicating survey outcomes and uncertainty.