Lisette Waits

Dr. Lisette Waits


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

37Years (1990-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 January 2001 in Molecular Ecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LWLisette Waits
Lisette Waits
GLGordon Luikart
Gordon Luikart
PTPierre Taberlet
Pierre Taberlet

26 May 2016 in Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CGCaren S. Goldberg
Caren S. Goldberg
CTCameron R. Turner
Cameron R. Turner
KDKristy Deiner
Kristy Deiner
KKKaty Klymus
Katy Klymus
PTPhilip Francis Thomsen
Philip Francis Thomsen
PTPierre Taberlet
Pierre Taberlet
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.

1 August 1999 in Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PTPierre Taberlet
Pierre Taberlet
LWLisette Waits
Lisette Waits
GLGordon Luikart
Gordon Luikart

1 November 2006 in Heredity
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ASA Storfer
A Storfer
MMM A Murphy
M A Murphy
JEJ S Evans
J S Evans
CGC S Goldberg
C S Goldberg
SRS Robinson
S Robinson
LWLisette Waits
Lisette Waits
Landscape genetics has emerged as a new research area that integrates population genetics, landscape ecology and spatial statistics. Researchers in this field can combine the high resolution of genetic markers with spatial data and a variety of statistical methods to evaluate the role that landscape variables play in shaping genetic diversity and population structure. While interest in this research area is growing rapidly, our ability to fully utilize landscape data, test explicit hypotheses and truly integrate these diverse disciplines has lagged behind. Part of the current challenge in the development of the field of landscape genetics is bridging the communication and knowledge gap between these highly specific and technical disciplines. The goal of this review is to help bridge this gap by exposing geneticists to terminology, sampling methods and analysis techniques widely used in landscape ecology and spatial statistics but rarely addressed in the genetics literature. We offer a definition for the term ‘landscape genetics’, provide an overview of the landscape genetics literature, give guidelines for appropriate sampling design and useful analysis techniques, and discuss future directions in the field. We hope, this review will stimulate increased dialog and enhance interdisciplinary collaborations advancing this exciting new field.

1 August 2013 in Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DPDavid S. Pilliod
David S. Pilliod
CGCaren S. Goldberg
Caren S. Goldberg
RARobert S. Arkle
Robert S. Arkle
LWLisette Waits
Lisette Waits
Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods for detecting aquatic species are advancing rapidly, but with little evaluation of field protocols or precision of resulting estimates. We compared sampling results from traditional field methods with eDNA methods for two amphibians in 13 streams in central Idaho, USA. We also evaluated three water collection protocols and the influence of sampling location, time of day, and distance from animals on eDNA concentration in the water. We found no difference in detection or amount of eDNA among water collection protocols. eDNA methods had slightly higher detection rates than traditional field methods, particularly when species occurred at low densities. eDNA concentration was positively related to field-measured density, biomass, and proportion of transects occupied. Precision of eDNA-based abundance estimates increased with the amount of eDNA in the water and the number of replicate subsamples collected. eDNA concentration did not vary significantly with sample location in the stream, time of day, or distance downstream from animals. Our results further advance the implementation of eDNA methods for monitoring aquatic vertebrates in stream habitats.

1 October 2005 in The Journal of Wildlife Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LWLisette Waits
Lisette Waits
DPDavid Paetkau
David Paetkau