Water eDNA metabarcoding is effective in detecting non-native species in marinas, but detection errors still hinder its use for passive monitoring

References

• Alberdi A, Aizpurua O, Gilbert MTP, Bohmann K. 2018. Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. Methods Ecol Evol. 9:134–147. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. 1990. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 215:403–410. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andruszkiewicz EA, Zhang WG, Lavery AC, Govindarajan AF. 2021. Environmental DNA shedding and decay rates from diverse animal forms and thermal regimes. Environ DNA. 3:492–514. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.141
   Google Scholar
• Antich A, Palacín C, Cebrian E, Golo R, Wangensteen OS, Turon X. 2021. Marine biomonitoring with eDNA: can metabarcoding of water samples cut it as a tool for surveying benthic communities? Mol Ecol. 30:3175–3188. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15641
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ardura A, Rick J, Martinez JL, Zaiko A, Garcia-Vazquez E. 2021. Stress resistance for unraveling potential biopollutants. Insights from ballast water community analysis through DNA. Mar Pollut Bull. 163:111935. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111935
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ardura A, Zaiko A, Martinez JL, Samulioviene A, Semenova A, Garcia-Vazquez E. 2015. eDNA and specific primers for early detection of invasive species—a case study on the bivalve Rangia cuneata, currently spreading in Europe. Mar Environ Res. 112:48–55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.09.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop JDD, Roby C, Yunnie ALE, Wood CA, Lévêque L, Turon X, Viard F. 2013. The Southern Hemisphere ascidian Asterocarpa humilis is unrecognised but widely established in NW France and Great Britain. Biol Invasions. 15:253–260. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0286-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop JDD, Wood CA, Lévêque L, Yunnie ALE, Viard F. 2015. Repeated rapid assessment surveys reveal contrasting trends in occupancy of marinas by non-indigenous species on opposite sides of the western English Channel. Mar Pollut Bull. 95:699–706. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.11.043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackman R, Mächler E, Altermatt F, Arnold A, Beja P, Boets P, Egeter B, Elbrecht V, Filipe A, Jones J, et al. 2019. Advancing the use of molecular methods for routine freshwater macroinvertebrate biomonitoring—the need for calibration experiments. MBMG. 3:e34735. doi:https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.3.34735
   Google Scholar
• Borrell YJ, Miralles L, Do Huu H, Mohammed-Geba K, Garcia-Vazquez E. 2017. DNA in a bottle—Rapid metabarcoding survey for early alerts of invasive species in ports. PLoS ONE. 12:e0183347. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183347
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borrell YJ, Miralles L, Mártinez-Marqués A, Semeraro A, Arias A, Carleos CE, García-Vázquez E. 2018. Metabarcoding and post-sampling strategies to discover non-indigenous species: a case study in the estuaries of the central south Bay of Biscay. Journal for Nature Conservation. 42:67–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.07.002
   Google Scholar
• Bouchemousse S, Lévêque L, Viard F. 2017. Do settlement dynamics influence competitive interactions between an alien tunicate and its native congener? Ecol Evol. 7:200–213. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2655
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyer F, Mercier C, Bonin A, Le Bras Y, Taberlet P, Coissac E. 2016. OBITOOLS: a UNIX-inspired software package for DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol Resour. 16:176–182. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briski E, Ghabooli S, Bailey SA, MacIsaac HJ. 2016. Are genetic databases sufficiently populated to detect non-indigenous species? Biol Invasions. 18:1911–1922. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1134-1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. 2016. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 13:581–583. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3869
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carney KJ, Minton MS, Holzer KK, Miller AW, McCann LD, Ruiz GM. 2017. Evaluating the combined effects of ballast water management and trade dynamics on transfers of marine organisms by ships. PLoS One. 12:e0172468. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172468
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Collins RA, Bakker J, Wangensteen OS, Soto AZ, Corrigan L, Sims DW, Genner MJ, Mariani S. 2019. Non-specific amplification compromises environmental DNA metabarcoding with COI. Methods Ecol Evol. 10:1985–2001. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13276
   Google Scholar
• Cordier T, Frontalini F, Cermakova K, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Treglia M, Scantamburlo E, Bonamin V, Pawlowski J. 2019. Multi-marker eDNA metabarcoding survey to assess the environmental impact of three offshore gas platforms in the North Adriatic Sea (Italy). Mar Environ Res. 146:24–34. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.12.009
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Corse E, Tougard C, Archambaud-Suard G, Agnèse J-F, Messu Mandeng FD, Bilong Bilong CF, Duneau D, Zinger L, Chappaz R, Xu CCY, et al. 2019. One-locus-several-primers: a strategy to improve the taxonomic and haplotypic coverage in diet metabarcoding studies. Ecol Evol. 9:4603–4620. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5063
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Couton M, Baud A, Daguin-Thiébaut C, Corre E, Comtet T, Viard F. 2021. High-throughput sequencing on preservative ethanol is effective at jointly examining infraspecific and taxonomic diversity, although bioinformatics pipelines do not perform equally. Ecol Evol. 11:5533–5546. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7453
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Couton M, Comtet T, Le Cam S, Corre E, Viard F. 2019. Metabarcoding on planktonic larval stages: an efficient approach for detecting and investigating life cycle dynamics of benthic aliens. MBI. 10:657–689. doi:https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2019.10.4.06
   Google Scholar
• Cowart DA, Pinheiro M, Mouchel O, Maguer M, Grall J, Miné J, Arnaud-Haond S. 2015. Metabarcoding is powerful yet still blind: a comparative analysis of morphological and molecular surveys of seagrass communities. PLoS One. 10:e0117562. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117562
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dafforn KA, Johnston EL, Glasby TM. 2009. Shallow moving structures promote marine invader dominance. Biofouling. 25:277–287. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08927010802710618
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darling JA, Galil BS, Carvalho GR, Rius M, Viard F, Piraino S. 2017. Recommendations for developing and applying genetic tools to assess and manage biological invasions in marine ecosystems. Mar Policy. 85:54–64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darling JA, Jerde CL, Sepulveda AJ. 2021. What do you mean by false positive? Environ DNA. 3:879–883. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.194
   Google Scholar
• Darling JA, Pochon X, Abbott CL, Inglis GJ, Zaiko A. 2020. The risks of using molecular biodiversity data for incidental detection of species of concern. Divers Distrib. 26:1116–1121. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duarte S, Vieira P, Costa F. 2020. Assessment of species gaps in DNA barcode libraries of non-indigenous species (NIS) occurring in European coastal regions. MBMG. 4:e55162. doi:https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.4.55162
   Google Scholar
• Duarte S, Vieira PE, Lavrador AS, Costa FO. 2021. Status and prospects of marine NIS detection and monitoring through (e)DNA metabarcoding. Sci Total Environ. 751:141729. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141729
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fernandez S, Miller DL, Holman LE, Gittenberger A, Ardura A, Rius M, Mirimin L. 2021. Environmental DNA sampling protocols for the surveillance of marine non-indigenous species in Irish coastal waters. Mar Pollut Bull. 172:112893. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112893
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fonseca V, Carvalho G, Sung W, Johnson HF, Power D, Neill S, Packer M, Blaxter ML, Lambshead PJ, Thomas W, et al. 2010. Second-generation environmental sequencing unmasks marine metazoan biodiversity. Nat Commun. 1:98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallon RK, Robuchon M, Leroy B, Le Gall L, Valero M, Feunteun E. 2014. Twenty years of observed and predicted changes in subtidal red seaweed assemblages along a biogeographical transition zone: inferring potential causes from environmental data. J Biogeogr. 41:2293–2306. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garabedian K, Malaquias M, Crocetta F, Zenetos A, Kavadas S, Valdés Á. 2017. Haminoea orteai Talavera, Murillo and Templado, 1987 (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Heterobranchia: Cephalaspidea), a widespread species in the Mediterranean and northeastern Atlantic. Cah Biol Mar. 58:107–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg CS, Turner CR, Deiner K, Klymus KE, Thomsen PF, Murphy MA, Spear SF, McKee A, Oyler-McCance SJ, Cornman RS, et al. 2016. Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods Ecol Evol. 7:1299–1307. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grey EK, Bernatchez L, Cassey P, Deiner K, Deveney M, Howland KL, Lacoursière-Roussel A, Leong SCY, Li Y, Olds B, et al. 2018. Effects of sampling effort on biodiversity patterns estimated from environmental DNA metabarcoding surveys. Sci Rep. 8:8843. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27048-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hansen BK, Bekkevold D, Clausen LW, Nielsen EE. 2018. The sceptical optimist: challenges and perspectives for the application of environmental DNA in marine fisheries. Fish Fish. 19:751–768. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper LR, Lawson Handley L, Hahn C, Boonham N, Rees HC, Gough KC, Lewis E, Adams IP, Brotherton P, Phillips S, et al. 2018. Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (. Ecol Evol. 8:6330–6341. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4013
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• HELCOM and OSPAR 2013. Joint harmonised procedure for the contracting parties of OSPAR and HELCOM on the granting of exemptions under international convention for the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediments. Regulation A-4.
   Google Scholar
• Hewitt CL, Martin RB. 2001. Revised protocols for baseline port surveys for introduced marine species: survey design sampling protocols and specimen handling. Hobart, Australia: Centre for research on introduced marine pests. Technical report no. 22.
   Google Scholar
• Holman LE, Chng Y, Rius M. 2022. How does eDNA decay affect metabarcoding experiments? Environ DNA. 4:108–116. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.201
   Google Scholar
• Holman LE, de Bruyn M, Creer S, Carvalho G, Robidart J, Rius M. 2019. Detection of introduced and resident marine species using environmental DNA metabarcoding of sediment and water. Sci Rep. 9:11559. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47899-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kelly RP, O'Donnell JL, Lowell NC, Shelton AO, Samhouri JF, Hennessey SM, Feist BE, Williams GD. 2016. Genetic signatures of ecological diversity along an urbanization gradient. PeerJ. 4:e2444. doi:https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2444
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kijewski TK, Zbawicka M, Väinölä R, Wenne R. 2006. Introgression and mitochondrial DNA heteroplasmy in the Baltic populations of mussels Mytilus trossulus and M. edulis. Mar Biol. 149:1371–1385. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-006-0316-2
   Google Scholar
• Koziol A, Stat M, Simpson T, Jarman S, DiBattista JD, Harvey ES, Marnane M, McDonald J, Bunce M. 2019. Environmental DNA metabarcoding studies are critically affected by substrate selection. Mol Ecol Resour. 19:366–376. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12971
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leclerc J-C, Viard F, González Sepúlveda E, Díaz C, Neira Hinojosa J, Pérez Araneda K, Silva F, Brante A. 2020. Habitat type drives the distribution of non-indigenous species in fouling communities regardless of associated maritime traffic. Divers Distrib. 26:62–75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12997
   Google Scholar
• Leduc N, Lacoursière-Roussel A, Howland KL, Archambault P, Sevellec M, Normandeau E, Dispas A, Winkler G, McKindsey CW, Simard N, et al. 2019. Comparing eDNA metabarcoding and species collection for documenting Arctic metazoan biodiversity. Environ DNA. 1:342–358. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.35
   Google Scholar
• Lehtiniemi M, Ojaveer H, David M, Galil B, Gollasch S, McKenzie C, Minchin D, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Olenin S, Pederson J. 2015. Dose of truth—monitoring marine non-indigenous species to serve legislative requirements. Mar Policy. 54:26–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leray M, Yang JY, Meyer CP, Mills SC, Agudelo N, Ranwez V, Boehm JT, Machida RJ. 2013. A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents. Front Zool. 10:34. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-10-34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makiola A, Compson ZG, Baird DJ, Barnes MA, Boerlijst SP, Bouchez A, Brennan G, Bush A, Canard E, Cordier T, et al. 2020. Key questions for next-generation biomonitoring. Front Env Sci. 7:197. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00197
   Google Scholar
• Modica MV, Mariottini P, Prkić J, Oliverio M. 2013. DNA-barcoding of sympatric species of ectoparasitic gastropods of the genus Cerithiopsis (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Cerithiopsidae) from Croatia. J Mar Biol Ass. 93:1059–1065. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315412000926
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monniot C. 1974. Ascidies littorales et bathyales récoltées au cours de la campagne Biaçores: Phlébobranches et Stolidobranches. Bulletin du Museum National D'Histoire Naturelle 3ème Série. 251:1327–1352.
   Google Scholar
• Morisette J, Burgiel S, Brantley K, Daniel W, Darling J, Davis J, Franklin T, Gaddis K, Hunter M, Lance R, et al. 2021. Strategic considerations for invasive species managers in the utilization of environmental DNA (eDNA): steps for incorporating this powerful surveillance tool. MBI. 12:747–775. doi:https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2021.12.3.15
   Google Scholar
• Ojaveer H, Galil BS, Campbell ML, Carlton JT, Canning-Clode J, Cook EJ, Davidson AD, Hewitt CL, Jelmert A, Marchini A, et al. 2015. Classification of non-indigenous species based on their impacts: considerations for application in marine management. PLoS Biol. 13:e1002130. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Outinen O, Puntila-Dodd R, Barda I, Brzana R, Hegele-Drywa J, Kalnina M, Kostanda M, Lindqvist A, Normant-Saremba M, Ścibik M, et al. 2021. The role of marinas in the establishment and spread of non-indigenous species in Baltic Sea fouling communities. Biofouling. 37:984–997. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2021.1996564
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paz G, Rinkevich B. 2021. Gap analysis of DNA barcoding in ERMS reference libraries for ascidians and cnidarians. Environ Sci Eur. 33:4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-00449-9
   Google Scholar
• Pearman JK, Ammon U, Laroche O, Zaiko A, Wood SA, Zubia M, Planes S, Pochon X. 2021. Metabarcoding as a tool to enhance marine surveillance of nonindigenous species in tropical harbors: A case study in Tahiti. Environ DNA. 3:173–189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.154
   Google Scholar
• Pérez-Portela R, Turon X. 2008. Phylogenetic relationships of the Clavelinidae and Pycnoclavellidae (Ascidiacea) inferred from mtDNA data. Invertebr Biol. 127:108–120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7410.2007.00112.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piñol J, Senar MA, Symondson WOC. 2019. The choice of universal primers and the characteristics of the species mixture determine when DNA metabarcoding can be quantitative. Mol Ecol. 28:407–419. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14776
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Porter TM, Hajibabaei M. 2018. Over 2.5 million COI sequences in GenBank and growing. PLoS One. 13:e0200177. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prkić J, Mariottini P. 2009. Description of two new Cerithiopsis from the Croatian coast, with comments on the Cerithiopsis tubercularis complex (Gastropoda, Cerithiopsidae). Aldrovandia. 5:3–27.
   Google Scholar
• Rey A, Basurko OC, Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N. 2020. Considerations for metabarcoding-based port biological baseline surveys aimed at marine nonindigenous species monitoring and risk assessments. Ecol Evol. 10:2452–2465. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6071
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robertson PA, Mill A, Novoa A, Jeschke JM, Essl F, Gallardo B, Geist J, Jarić I, Lambin X, Musseau C, et al. 2020. A proposed unified framework to describe the management of biological invasions. Biol Invasions. 22:2633–2645. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02298-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salter I. 2018. Seasonal variability in the persistence of dissolved environmental DNA (eDNA) in a marine system: The role of microbial nutrient limitation. PLoS One. 13:e0192409. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192409
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Pagad S, Pyšek P, Winter M, Arianoutsou M, et al. 2017. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat Commun. 8:14435. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw JLA, Weyrich LS, Hallegraeff G, Cooper A. 2019. Retrospective eDNA assessment of potentially harmful algae in historical ship ballast tank and marine port sediments. Mol Ecol. 28:2476–2485. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15055
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simpson TJS, Dias PJ, Snow M, Muñoz J, Berry T. 2017. Real-time PCR detection of Didemnum perlucidum (Monniot, 1983) and Didemnum vexillum (Kott, 2002) in an applied routine marine biosecurity context. Mol Ecol Resour. 17:443–453. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12581
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spalding MD, Fox HE, Allen GR, Davidson N, Ferdaña ZA, Finlayson M, Halpern BS, Jorge MA, Lombana A, Lourie SA, et al. 2007. Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. Bioscience. 57:573–583. doi:https://doi.org/10.1641/B570707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stat M, Huggett MJ, Bernasconi R, DiBattista JD, Berry TE, Newman SJ, Harvey ES, Bunce M. 2017. Ecosystem biomonitoring with eDNA: metabarcoding across the tree of life in a tropical marine environment. Sci Rep. 7:12240. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12501-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taberlet P, Bonin A, Zinger L, Coissac E. 2018. Environmental DNA: For Biodiversity Research and Monitoring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taberlet P, Coissac E, Hajibabaei M, Rieseberg LH. 2012. Environmental DNA. Mol Ecol. 21:1789–1793. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05542.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trebitz AS, Hoffman JC, Darling JA, Pilgrim EM, Kelly JR, Brown EA, Chadderton WL, Egan SP, Grey EK, Hashsham SA, et al. 2017. Early detection monitoring for aquatic non-indigenous species: optimizing surveillance, incorporating advanced technologies, and identifying research needs. J Environ Manage. 202:299–310. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.045
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tsuji S, Miya M, Ushio M, Sato H, Minamoto T, Yamanaka H. 2020. Evaluating intraspecific genetic diversity using environmental DNA and denoising approach: a case study using tank water. Environ DNA. 2:42–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.44
   Google Scholar
• Turon X, Casso M, Pascual M, Viard F. 2020. Looks can be deceiving: Didemnum pseudovexillum sp. nov. (Ascidiacea) in European harbours. Mar Biodivers. 50:48.
   Google Scholar
• van der Loos LM, Nijland R. 2021. Biases in bulk: DNA metabarcoding of marine communities and the methodology involved. Mol Ecol. 30:3270–3288. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15592
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vazquez E, Ramos-Espla AA, Turon X. 1995. The genus Polycarpa (Ascidiacea, Styelidae) on the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts of the Iberian Peninsula. J Zool. 237:593–614. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1995.tb05017.x
   Google Scholar
• Viard F, David P, Darling JA. 2016. Marine invasions enter the genomic era: three lessons from the past, and the way forward. Curr Zool. 62:629–642. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zow053
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Viard F, Roby C, Turon X, Bouchemousse S, Bishop JDD. 2019. Cryptic diversity and database errors challenge non-indigenous species surveys: an illustration with Botrylloides spp. in the English Channel and Mediterranean Sea. Front Mar Sci. 6:615. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00615
   Google Scholar
• von Ammon U, Wood SA, Laroche O, Zaiko A, Tait L, Lavery S, Inglis GJ, Pochon X. 2018. Combining morpho-taxonomy and metabarcoding enhances the detection of non-indigenous marine pests in biofouling communities. Sci Rep. 8:16290. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34541-1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wacker S, Fossøy F, Larsen BM, Brandsegg H, Sivertsgård R, Karlsson S. 2019. Downstream transport and seasonal variation in freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) eDNA concentration. Environ DNA. 1:64–73. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.10
   Google Scholar
• West KM, Adam AAS, White N, Robbins WD, Barrow D, Lane A, T, Richards Z. 2022. The applicability of eDNA metabarcoding approaches for sessile benthic surveying in the Kimberley region. North-Western Australia Environ DNA. 4:34–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.184
   Google Scholar
• West KM, Stat M, Harvey ES, Skepper CL, DiBattista JD, Richards ZT, Travers MJ, Newman SJ, Bunce M. 2020. eDNA metabarcoding survey reveals fine-scale coral reef community variation across a remote, tropical island ecosystem. Mol Ecol. 29:1069–1086. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15382
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Westfall KM, Therriault TW, Abbott CL. 2020. A new approach to molecular biosurveillance of invasive species using DNA metabarcoding. Global Change Biol. 26:1012–1022. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14886
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wood SA, Pochon X, Laroche O, Ammon U, Adamson J, Zaiko A. 2019. A comparison of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (PCR), quantitative PCR and metabarcoding for species-specific detection in environmental DNA. Mol Ecol Resour. 19:1407–1419. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xia Z, Zhan A, Johansson ML, DeRoy E, Haffner GD, MacIsaac HJ. 2021. Screening marker sensitivity: optimizing eDNA-based rare species detection. Divers Distrib. 27:1981–1988. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13262
   Google Scholar
• Zaiko A, Samuiloviene A, Ardura A, Garcia-Vazquez E. 2015. Metabarcoding approach for nonindigenous species surveillance in marine coastal waters. Mar Pollut Bull. 100:53–59. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.09.030
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zbawicka M, Burzyński A, Skibinski D, Wenne R. 2010. Scottish Mytilus trossulus mussels retain ancestral mitochondrial DNA: complete sequences of male and female mtDNA genomes. Gene. 456:45–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2010.02.009
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang GK, Chain FJJ, Abbott CL, Cristescu ME. 2018. Metabarcoding using multiplexed markers increases species detection in complex zooplankton communities. Evol Appl. 11:1901–1914. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12694
   PubMedGoogle Scholar