An expert-driven framework for applying eDNA tools to improve biosecurity in the Antarctic

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningfagfællebedømt

Dokumenter

  • Fulltext

    Forlagets udgivne version, 1,45 MB, PDF-dokument

  • Laurence J. Clarke
  • Justine D. Shaw
  • Leonie Suter
  • Javier Atalah
  • Dana M. Bergstrom
  • Peter Convey
  • Michelle Greve
  • Oakes Holland
  • Melissa J. Houghton
  • Kevin A. Hughes
  • Emma L. Johnston
  • Catherine K. King
  • Arlie H. McCarthy
  • Angela McGaughran
  • Luis R. Pertierra
  • Sharon A. Robinson
  • Craig D. H. Sherman
  • Jonathan S. Stark
  • Mark I. Stevens
  • Jan M. Strugnell
  • Ulla von Ammon
  • Nerida G. Wilson
  • Anastasija Zaiko
  • Anna J. MacDonald

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for detecting biofouling organisms.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftManagement of Biological Invasions
Vol/bind14
Udgave nummer3
Sider (fra-til)379-402
Antal sider24
ISSN1989-8649
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2023

Bibliografisk note

Funding Information:
This work was supported as a Science Innovation Project by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s Science Innovation Program funding 2021–22 (project team: A.J.M., L.J.C., D.M.B., C.K.K., J.S.S. and L.S.). Support was also provided (to J.D.S, E.L.J., S.A.R., J.S.S., M.I.S., J.M.S., N.G.W.) from Australian Research Council SRIEAS grant SR200100005. P.C. and K.A.H. are supported by NERC core funding to the BAS Biodiversity, Evolution and Adaptation Team and Environment Office, respectively. L.R.P. and M.G. are supported by Biodiversa ASICS funding. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Funding Information:
We acknowledge advice and support for this project from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, including from the Office of the Science Convenor and the “Omics and eDNA Community of Practice”. We thank Andrew Sharman, Michael Double, Andrea Polanowski (Australian Antarctic Division), Xavier Pochon (Cawthron Institute), and Patrick Lewis (Biofouling Solutions) for helpful discussions, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.This work was supported as a Science Innovation Project by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s Science Innovation Program funding 2021–22 (project team: A.J.M., L.J.C., D.M.B., C.K.K., J.S.S. and L.S.). Support was also provided (to J.D.S, E.L.J., S.A.R., J.S.S., M.I.S., J.M.S., N.G.W.) from Australian Research Council SRIEAS grant SR200100005. P.C. and K.A.H. are supported by NERC core funding to the BAS Biodiversity, Evolution and Adaptation Team and Environment Office, respectively. L.R.P. and M.G. are supported by Biodiversa ASICS funding. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Publisher Copyright:
© Clarke et al.

ID: 368732294