Optimization of Methods for the Collection of Larval Sea Lamprey Environmental DNA (eDNA) from Great Lakes Tributaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling and analysis have the potential to revolutionize species monitoring, but the effective implementation in field conditions remains uncertain. The current study addresses this knowledge gap by developing a robust eDNA sampling protocol for the detection of larval Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus in Great Lakes tributaries. Methods: Three experiments were conducted to optimize eDNA field sample collection. The first experiment compared the performance of 0.45-μm, 1.2-μm, 5.0-μm cellulose nitrate (CN) filters and a 1.5-μm glass-fiber filter to determine which filter consistently yielded the highest median DNA copy number. The second experiment evaluated the performance of two filtration devices for eDNA sample collection and filtration, an autosampler (Halltech OSMOS aquatic eDNA sampler, Halltech Environmental and Aquatic Research, Guelph, Ontario, Canada) and a handheld peristaltic pump. In the third experiment, a biweekly eDNA survey was conducted to investigate the temporal dynamics of spawning Sea Lamprey eDNA to determine at what point during the season only larval lamprey eDNA is detected. Results: Our findings indicate that CN filters with a pore size of 1.2 μm or 5.0 μm captured consistently the highest amount of eDNA, but the 5.0-μm CN filter was selected for routine use due to its superior performance and reduced risk of clogging. We found no significant performance differences between the OSMOS aquatic eDNA sampler and the peristaltic pump across three response variables (frequency of contaminated field negative controls, PCR inhibition, and positive detections), suggesting both devices can reliably be used. Moreover, our study found that the spawning Sea Lamprey eDNA signal attenuates approximately 4–6 weeks after the last adult Sea Lamprey capture, which is consistent with previous research. Discussion: By synthesizing the results, we provide a streamlined eDNA sampling protocol for larval Sea Lamprey monitoring. We recommend beginning eDNA sampling at least six weeks after the end of the estimated regional spawning period and using a 5.0-μm CN filter in combination with the OSMOS aquatic eDNA sampler, with the handheld peristaltic pump serving as a backup. This optimized approach improves the efficacy and reliability of eDNA-based monitoring.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".