Geology topics

Christopher L. Jerde

Publications and source records attributed to Christopher L. Jerde.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

A metadata checklist and data formatting guidelines to make eDNA FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable)

The success of environmental DNA (eDNA) approaches for species detection has revolutionized biodiversity monitoring and distribution mapping. Targeted eDNA amplification approaches, such as quantitative PCR, have improved our understanding of species distribution, and metabarcoding-based approaches have enabled biodiversity assessment at unprecedented scales and taxonomic resolution. eDNA datasets, however, are often scattered across repositories with inconsistent formats, varying access restrictions, and inadequate metadata; this limits their interoperation, reuse, and overall impact. Adopting FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data practices with eDNA data can transform the monitoring of biodiversity and individual species and support data-driven biodiversity management across broad scales. FAIR practices remain underdeveloped in the eDNA community, partly due to gaps in adapting existing vocabularies, such as Darwin Core (DwC) and Minimum Information about any (x) Sequence (MIxS), to eDNA-specific needs and workflows. To address these challenges, we propose a comprehensive FAIR eDNA (FAIRe) Metadata Checklist, which integrates existing data standards and introduces new terms tailored to eDNA workflows. Metadata are systematically linked to both raw data (e.g., metabarcoding sequences, Ct/Cq values of targeted qPCR assays) and derived biological observations (e.g., Amplicon Sequence Variant (ASV)/Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) tables, species presence/absence). Along with formatting guidelines, tools, templates, and example datasets, we introduce a standardized, ready-to-use approach for FAIR eDNA practices. Through broad collaboration, we seek to integrate these guidelines into established biodiversity and molecular data standards, promote journal data policies, and foster user-driven improvements and uptake of FAIR practices among eDNA data producers. In proposing this standardized approach and developing a long-term plan with key databases and data standard organizations, the goal is to enhance accessibility, maximize reuse, and elevate the scientific impact of these valuable biodiversity data resources.

Environmental DNA↗

USGS2024

Critical considerations for communicating environmental DNA science

The economic and methodological efficiencies of environmental DNA (eDNA) based survey approaches provide an unprecedented opportunity to assess and monitor aquatic environments. However, instances of inadequate communication from the scientific community about confidence levels, knowledge gaps, reliability, and appropriate parameters of eDNA-based methods have hindered their uptake in environmental monitoring programs and, in some cases, has created misperceptions or doubts in the management community. To help remedy this situation, scientists convened a session at the Second National Marine eDNA Workshop to discuss strategies for improving communications with managers. These include articulating the readiness of different eDNA applications, highlighting the strengths and limitations of eDNA tools for various applications or use cases, communicating uncertainties associated with specified uses transparently, and avoiding the exaggeration of exploratory and preliminary findings. Several key messages regarding implementation, limitations, and relationship to existing methods were prioritized. To be inclusive of the diverse managers, practitioners, and researchers, we and the other workshop participants propose the development of communication workflow plans, using RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) charts to clarify the roles of all pertinent individuals and parties and to minimize the chance for miscommunications. We also propose developing decision support tools such as Structured Decision-Making (SDM) to help balance the benefits of eDNA sampling with the inherent uncertainty, and developing an eDNA readiness scale to articulate the technological readiness of eDNA approaches for specific applications. These strategies will increase clarity and consistency regarding our understanding of the utility of eDNA-based methods, improve transparency, foster a common vision for confidently applying eDNA approaches, and enhance their benefit to the monitoring and assessment community.

Environmental DNA↗

USGS2023

Toward a national eDNA strategy for the United States

Environmental DNA (eDNA) data make it possible to measure and monitor biodiversity at unprecedented resolution and scale. As use-cases multiply and scientific consensus grows regarding the value of eDNA analysis, public agencies have an opportunity to decide how and where eDNA data fit into their mandates. Within the United States, many federal and state agencies are individually using eDNA data in various applications and developing relevant scientific expertise. A national strategy for eDNA implementation would capitalize on recent scientific developments, providing a common set of next-generation tools for natural resource management and public health protection. Such a strategy would avoid patchwork and possibly inconsistent guidelines in different agencies, smoothing the way for efficient uptake of eDNA data in management. Because eDNA analysis is already in widespread use in both ocean and freshwater settings, we focus here on applications in these environments. However, we foresee the broad adoption of eDNA analysis to meet many resource management issues across the nation because the same tools have immediate terrestrial and aerial applications.

Environmental DNA↗

USGS2022

Environmental DNA methods for ecological monitoring and biodiversity assessment in estuaries

Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection methods can complement traditional biomonitoring to yield new ecological insights in aquatic systems. However, the conceptual and methodological frameworks for aquatic eDNA detection and interpretation were developed primarily in freshwater environments and have not been well established for estuaries and marine environments that are by nature dynamic, turbid, and hydrologically complex. Environmental context and species life history are critical for successful application of eDNA methods, and the challenges associated with eDNA detection in estuaries were the subject of a symposium held at the University of California Davis on January 29, 2020 ( https://marinescience.ucdavis.edu/engagement/past-events/edna ). Here, we elaborate upon topics addressed in the symposium to evaluate eDNA methods in the context of monitoring and biodiversity studies in estuaries. We first provide a concise overview of eDNA science and methods, and then examine the San Francisco Estuary (SFE) as a case study to illustrate how eDNA detection can complement traditional monitoring programs and provide regional guidance on future potential eDNA applications. Additionally, we offer recommendations for enhancing communication between eDNA scientists and natural resource managers, which is essential for integrating eDNA methods into existing monitoring programs. Our intent is to create a resource that is accessible to those outside the field of eDNA, especially managers, without oversimplifying the challenges or advantages of these methods.

Estuaries and Coasts↗

USGS2021

What do you mean by false positive?

Misunderstandings regarding the term “false positive” present a significant hurdle to broad adoption of eDNA monitoring methods. Here, we identify three challenges to clear communication of false-positive error between scientists, managers, and the public. The first arises from a failure to distinguish between false-positive eDNA detection at the sample level and false-positive inference of taxa presence at the site level. The second is based on the large proportion of false positives that may occur when true-positive detections are likely to be rare, even when rates of contamination or other error are low. And the third misunderstanding occurs when conventional species detection approaches, often based on direct capture, are used to confirm eDNA approaches without acknowledging or quantifying the conventional approach's detection probability. The solutions to these issues include careful and consistent communication of error definitions, managing expectations of error rates, and providing a balanced discussion not only of alternative sources of species DNA, but also of the detection limitations of conventional methods. We argue that the benefit of addressing these misunderstandings will be increased confidence in the utility of eDNA methods and, ultimately, improved resource management using eDNA approaches.

Environmental DNA↗

USGS2020

Calibrating environmental DNA metabarcoding to conventional surveys for measuring fish species richness

The ability to properly identify species present in a landscape is foundational to ecology and essential for natural resource management and conservation. However, many species are often unaccounted for due to ineffective direct capture and visual surveys, especially in aquatic environments. Environmental DNA metabarcoding is an approach that overcomes low detection probabilities and should consequently enhance estimates of biodiversity and its proxy, species richness. Here, we synthesize 37 studies in natural aquatic systems to compare species richness estimates for bony fish between eDNA metabarcoding and conventional methods, such as nets, visual census, and electrofishing. In freshwater systems with fewer than 100 species, we found eDNA metabarcoding detected more species than conventional methods. Using multiple genetic markers further increased species richness estimates with eDNA metabarcoding. For more diverse freshwater systems and across marine systems, eDNA metabarcoding reported similar values of species richness to conventional methods; however, more studies are needed in these environments to better evaluate relative performance. In systems with greater biodiversity, eDNA metabarcoding will require more populated reference databases, increased sampling effort, and multi-marker assays to ensure robust species richness estimates to further validate the approach. eDNA metabarcoding is reliable and provides a path for broader biodiversity assessments that can outperform conventional methods for estimating species richness.

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2020

At Palmyra Atoll, the fish‐community environmental DNA signal changes across habitats but not with tides

At Palmyra Atoll, the environmental DNA (eDNA) signal on tidal sand flats was associated with fish biomass density and captured 98%–100% of the expected species diversity there. Although eDNA spilled over across habitats, species associated with reef habitat contributed more eDNA to reef sites than to sand‐flat sites, and species associated with sand‐flat habitat contributed more eDNA to sand‐flat sites than to reef sites. Tides did not disrupt the sand‐flat habitat signal. At least 25 samples give a coverage >97.5% at this diverse, tropical, marine system.

Journal of Fish Biology↗

USGS2020

Looking where it’s hard to see: A case study documenting rare Eucyclogobius newberryi presence in a California lagoon

Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is increasingly used for biomonitoring and research of fish populations and communities by environmental resource managers and academic researchers. Although managers are much interested in expanding the use of eDNA as a survey technique, they are sceptical about both its utility (given that information is often limited to presence/absence of a species) and feasibility (given the need for proper laboratory facilities for sample processing). Nonetheless, under the right circumstances, eDNA analysis is cost‐effective compared to many traditional aquatic survey methods and does not disturb habitat or harm the animals being surveyed. This article presents a case study in which eDNA analysis was successfully used to document the presence of a rare fish species in a waterway earmarked for restoration. The authors discuss the conditions that allowed this study to occur quickly and smoothly and speculate on how the goals of researchers and managers can be integrated for efficient and informative use of this tool.

California↗

USGS2020

Are environmental DNA methods ready for aquatic invasive species management?

Multiple studies have demonstrated environmental (e)DNA detections of rare, invasive species. However, invasive species managers struggle with using eDNA results because detections might not indicate species presence. We evaluated if eDNA methods have matured to a point where they can be widely applied to aquatic invasive species management. We found that eDNA methods meet legal standards for being admissible as evidence in most courts, suggesting that eDNA method reliability is not the problem. Rather, we suggest that the interface between results and management needs attention since there are few tools for integrating uncertainty into decision-making. Solutions include decision support trees based on molecular best practices that integrate the temporal and spatial trends in eDNA positives relative to human risk tolerance.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2018

Detecting southern California’s white sharks with environmental DNA

To improve ability to detect white sharks without the need for tags, or visual census, we developed a species-specific environmental DNA (eDNA) assay that targets a 163 bp fragment of the white shark ( Carcharodon carcharias ) mitochondrial cytochrome B gene on a digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) platform. We used this marker to detect white shark DNA in 250 ml water samples taken from across two sites in Santa Barbara, California (United States) frequented by juvenile white sharks. We did not detect white shark DNA in samples from two neighboring sites where sharks are presumably absent, suggesting that eDNA can indicate nearby white sharks. This marker development, testing, and opportunistic application in a region with known distributions of white sharks indicates that eDNA could be developed further to monitor white sharks, thereby informing conservation planning and public safety. With the potential increase in white shark populations due to decades of protection, there is a need for fishery independent methods for assessing white shark distributions, and eDNA may provide an ideal, non-intrusive tool for coastal assessments.

California↗

USGS2014

Grass carp in the Great Lakes region: establishment potential, expert perceptions, and re-evaluation of experimental evidence of ecological impact

Intentional introductions of nonindigenous fishes are increasing globally. While benefits of these introductions are easily quantified, assessments to understand the negative impacts to ecosystems are often difficult, incomplete, or absent. Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) was originally introduced to the United States as a biocontrol agent, and recent observations of wild, diploid individuals in the Great Lakes basin have spurred interest in re-evaluating its ecological risk. Here, we evaluate the ecological impact of grass carp using expert opinion and a suite of the most up-to-date analytical tools and data (ploidy assessment, eDNA surveillance, species distribution models (SDMs), and meta-analysis). The perceived ecological impact of grass carp by fisheries experts was variable, ranging from unknown to very high. Wild-caught triploid and diploid individuals occurred in multiple Great Lakes waterways, and eDNA surveillance suggests that grass carp are abundant in a major tributary of Lake Michigan. SDMs predicted suitable grass carp climate occurs in all Great Lakes. Meta-analysis showed that grass carp introductions impact both water quality and biota. Novel findings based on updated ecological impact assessment tools indicate that iterative risk assessment of introduced fishes may be warranted.

Great Lakes Basin↗

USGS2013

Validation of eDNA surveillance sensitivity for detection of Asian carps in controlled and field experiments

In many North American rivers, populations of multiple species of non-native cyprinid fishes are present, including black carp (Mylpharyngodon piceus), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), and goldfish (Carassius auratus). All six of these species are found in the Mississippi River basin and tracking their invasion has proven difficult, particularly where abundance is low. Knowledge of the location of the invasion front is valuable to natural resource managers because future ecological and economic damages can be most effectively prevented when populations are low. To test the accuracy of environmental DNA (eDNA) as an early indicator of species occurrence and relative abundance, we applied eDNA technology to the six non-native cyprinid species putatively present in a 2.6 river mile stretch of the Chicago (IL, USA) canal system that was subsequently treated with piscicide. The proportion of water samples yielding positive detections increased with relative abundance of the six species, as indicated by the number of carcasses recovered after poisoning. New markers for black carp, grass carp, and a common carp/goldfish are reported and details of the marker testing to ensure specificity are provided.

Illinois↗