Fediajevaite Julija, Priestley Victoria, Arnold Richard, Savolainen Vincent
Department of Life Sciences Imperial College London London UK.
Thomson Environmental Consultants Compass House Surrey Research Park Guildford UK.
Ecol Evol. 2021 Mar 18;11(9):4803-4815. doi: 10.1002/ece3.7382. eCollection 2021 May.
Decades of environmental DNA (eDNA) method application, spanning a wide variety of taxa and habitats, has advanced our understanding of eDNA and underlined its value as a tool for conservation practitioners. The general consensus is that eDNA methods are more accurate and cost-effective than traditional survey methods. However, they are formally approved for just a few species globally (e.g., Bighead Carp, Silver Carp, Great Crested Newt). We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that directly compare eDNA with traditional surveys to evaluate the assertion that eDNA methods are consistently "better."Environmental DNA publications for multiple species or single macro-organism detection were identified using the Web of Science, by searching "eDNA" and "environmental DNA" across papers published between 1970 and 2020. The methods used, focal taxa, habitats surveyed, and quantitative and categorical results were collated and analyzed to determine whether and under what circumstances eDNA outperforms traditional surveys.Results show that eDNA methods are cheaper, more sensitive, and detect more species than traditional methods. This is, however, taxa-dependent, with amphibians having the highest potential for detection by eDNA survey. Perhaps most strikingly, of the 535 papers reviewed just 49 quantified the probability of detection for both eDNA and traditional survey methods and studies were three times more likely to give qualitative statements of performance. : The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that where there is a direct comparison, eDNA surveys of macro-organisms are more accurate and efficient than traditional surveys. This conclusion, however, is based on just a fraction of available eDNA papers as most do not offer this granularity. We recommend that conclusions are substantiated with comparable and quantitative data. Where a direct comparison has not been made, we caution against the use of qualitative statements about relative performance. This consistency and rigor will simplify how the eDNA research community tracks methods-based advances and will also provide greater clarity for conservation practitioners. To this end suggest reporting standards for eDNA studies.
数十年来，环境DNA（eDNA）方法已应用于各种各样的分类群和栖息地，这增进了我们对eDNA的理解，并突出了其作为保护从业者工具的价值。普遍的共识是，eDNA方法比传统调查方法更准确且更具成本效益。然而，在全球范围内，它们仅被正式批准用于少数物种（例如，鳙鱼、鲢鱼、大冠蝾螈）。我们对直接比较eDNA与传统调查的研究进行了荟萃分析，以评估eDNA方法始终“更好”这一论断。通过在科学网中搜索1970年至2020年间发表的论文中的“eDNA”和“环境DNA”，确定了用于多物种或单一大型生物检测的环境DNA出版物。对所使用的方法、重点分类群、调查的栖息地以及定量和分类结果进行了整理和分析，以确定eDNA是否以及在何种情况下优于传统调查。结果表明，eDNA方法比传统方法更便宜、更灵敏，并且能检测到更多物种。然而，这取决于分类群，两栖动物通过eDNA调查被检测到的潜力最高。也许最引人注目的是，在审查的535篇论文中，只有49篇对eDNA和传统调查方法的检测概率进行了量化，而且研究给出性能定性陈述的可能性是前者的三倍。：这项荟萃分析的结果表明，在进行直接比较时，对大型生物的eDNA调查比传统调查更准确、更高效。然而，这一结论仅基于现有eDNA论文的一小部分，因为大多数论文没有提供这种详细程度的数据。我们建议用可比的定量数据来证实结论。在没有进行直接比较的情况下，我们告诫不要使用关于相对性能的定性陈述。这种一致性和严谨性将简化eDNA研究群体追踪基于方法的进展的方式，也将为保护从业者提供更大的清晰度。为此，我们提出了eDNA研究的报告标准。
