Spelling suggestions: "subject:"kirtland's snake"" "subject:"kirtland's rnake""
1 |
Efficacy of Using Environmental DNA (eDNA) to Detect Kirtland’s Snakes (Clonophis kirtlandii)Rikki Ratsch (5931176) 17 January 2019 (has links)
<p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys
utilize DNA shed from animals in order to detect their presence. Since it was
developed, this technique has been applied to numerous species across several
taxa. In some cases, it has been shown to be superior to traditional survey
methods at detecting rare or cryptic species. It allows for the detection of
animals in low numbers and does not require direct capture of an animal. This
allows eDNA to be more effective at detecting rare or cryptic species that
require high survey effort to find. This often reduces survey costs as many eDNA
samples can be collected quickly with little equipment required.</p>
<p>The Kirtland’s Snake (<i>Clonophis kirtlandii</i>) is a small Natricine
snake endemic to the Midwest. It is a species of conservation concern since it
is threatened throughout its range. Due to its cryptic and fossorial lifestyle,
it is also a notoriously difficult snake to survey. This has resulted in a poor
understanding of Kirtland’s Snake life history and population status. Applying
eDNA surveys to this species may increase detection probability, offering a
more efficient way to survey for them. </p>
<p>In this study, a
quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay was designed and tested alongside traditional
coverboard surveys. The assay had a limit of detection of 166 copies of
Kirtland’s Snake DNA. In crayfish burrow sediment, eDNA was found to be
detectable up to 10 days and may persist for up to 25 days. However, only one
detection occurred out of 380 field samples. Coverboard surveys revealed
temporal and spatial variation in Kirtland’s Snake abundance. More snakes were
captured in the spring, during the first field season, and at the south
coverboard transects. Kirtland’s Snake abundance was also found to be related
to the presence of grass and herbaceous vegetation as well as close proximity
to shrubs. Comparing survey methods, coverboards resulted in far better snake
detection, suggesting that eDNA does not offer an advantage over traditional
survey methods for this species. </p>
|
Page generated in 0.054 seconds