Abstract

Global efforts to conserve declining amphibian populations have necessitated the development of rapid, reliable, and targeted survey methods. Environmental DNA surveys offer alternative or complementary methods to traditional amphibian survey techniques. The California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense (CTS) is endemic to California, where it breeds in vernal pools. In the past 25 y, CTS has faced a 21% loss of known occurrences, largely through habitat loss, and it is threatened by hybridization with an introduced congener. Protecting and managing remaining CTS populations rely on accurately monitoring changes in their spatial distribution. Current monitoring practices typically use dip-net surveys that are time-consuming and prone to false negative errors. To provide a new resource for monitoring and surveying larval CTS, we designed an assay and tested it on water samples collected from 29 vernal pools at two locations in California. We compared environmental DNA results to contemporaneous dip-net surveying results and found the assay agreed with positive dip-net results in 100% of cases. In several instances, we also detected the presence of CTS genetic material in the early spring before larvae hatched, potentially offering a new, earlier detection option for this imperiled species. This assay provides a valuable, noninvasive molecular tool for monitoring the spatial distribution of the CTS in vernal pools.

Introduction

Amphibian declines in California's Great Central Valley mirror global trends (Fisher and Shaffer 1996), leading to local and regional efforts to protect and recover vulnerable species. The California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense, (CTS) is endemic to California and faces ongoing threats throughout its range that have led to a 21% reduction in known CTS occurrences since 2002 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services [USFWS] 2017). There are three distinct population segments federally recognized by the USFWS: the Central Valley distinct population segment, which is listed as threatened under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA 1973, as amended), and the Sonoma County and Santa Barbara distinct population segments, which are listed as endangered under the same act (ESA 1973). In California, this species is listed as threatened throughout its range under the California Endangered Species Act (1973).

Several specific threats have spurred the protection and recovery of CTS, including habitat destruction and fragmentation, invasive predators, and hybridization with the introduced barred tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium (USFWS 2017). Losses of vernal pools that serve as breeding and spawning habitat from November to April threaten larval and breeding adult CTS; 80–90% of the vernal pool habitat has been lost since Spanish settlement (King 1998). These losses are largely due to urbanization, agricultural land conversion, and other anthropogenic factors. During the spawning season, CTS adults and larvae congregate in vernal pools and ponds and can be readily monitored by visual inspection or dip-netting. Outside of this season, CTS live underground up to 1.86 km from the breeding site (Searcy and Shaffer 2011), making population-level monitoring infeasible. Consequently, CTS monitoring typically occurs during the wet season by using dip-net monitoring or trapping.

Conservation and restoration of amphibian populations rely on ongoing monitoring to provide consistent, accurate data to facilitate status reviews and consequent management decisions. Such spatial distribution monitoring tracks the presence–absence of a species in its habitat and changes in its distribution over time (Greenberg et al. 2018). To date, dip-net surveys are the most common survey method for monitoring the aquatic stage of terrestrial salamanders, although they are not without limitations (Skelly and Richardson 2009). For example, dip-netting causes substantial disturbance to pools when surveyors enter the pool and move a large D-frame mesh and aluminum net through the water column. This process can disturb CTS habitat through destruction of substrate and can result in direct injury to CTS larvae if they become severely entangled in nets or surveyors crush them while walking through pools (Anderson and Davis 2013). The accuracy of dip-netting is also debatable. For example, Curtis and Patton (2010) modeled the detection rate of dip-net surveys on ambystomatid larvae in isolated ponds on the East Coast of the United States and found that detection rates varied across species and throughout the field season, but peaked at only 77%. Furthermore, surveyor movement among pools may increase the risk of spreading diseases such as ranavirus and chytridiomycosis between amphibian populations, the latter of which is implicated in the decline of more than 500 amphibian species (Greenberg and Palen 2019).

Environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring is an emerging tool that can complement dip-net monitoring of amphibians and alleviate some of the associated concerns. Environmental DNA monitoring is a survey method that processes environmental samples (here, water) for genetic traces of a target species by using specially designed quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays. Worldwide, eDNA has been successfully used to track and monitor salamander species including the great crested newt Triturus cristatus in the UK (Biggs et al. 2015), the endangered hellbender salamander Cryptobranchus alleganiensis in Pennsylvania (Pitt et al. 2017), and the Idaho giant salamander Dicamptodon aterrimus (Pilliod et al. 2014), among others (Vörös et al. 2017; Goldberg et al. 2018; Preißler et al. 2019). The method may be particularly appropriate for CTS monitoring in part because dip-net surveys for CTS must be carried out by trained surveyors carrying federal permits. Collecting water from vernal pools for eDNA sampling requires no permits and minimal on-site training, can frequently be carried out without humans entering pools, and can provide highly accurate results. Here, we developed and field tested a qPCR-based eDNA assay for the detection of CTS from water samples and examined its potential as a survey method to monitor CTS presence–absence in vernal pools in California's Central Valley.

Methods

Assay development and optimization

To develop an eDNA assay for monitoring larval CTS, we first obtained representative DNA sequences from CTS and other Ambystomatidae covering the entire mitochondrial genome from GenBank (Grant et al. 2016; Table S1, Supplemental Material) and aligned them using the software program MEGA7 (Kumar et al. 2016). To design the qPCR assay, we identified candidate assays on the Cytochrome Oxidase I mitochondrial gene with Primer3Plus (Untergasser et al. 2007) and PrimerQuest (IDT, Coralville, IA). We then developed several candidate assays with a forward primer, a reverse primer, and a fluorophore-labeled DNA probe. Next, we checked each set of assays against our aligned sequences for the presence of species-specific, single-nucleotide polymorphisms. We selected the candidate assay that had the highest number of interspecific single-nucleotide polymorphisms without compromising optimal reaction kinetics (Table 1). To validate and optimize assays, we ran the assay using tissue-derived California tiger salamander DNA taken from adult salamanders in the Santa Rosa Plains in Sonoma County. The resulting optimized reaction recipe and thermocycling protocol for each sample was 1× TaqMan Environmental DNA Mastermix (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), 0.9 μM each primer, 0.15 μM probe, 1× bovine serum albumin (Life Sciences), and 6 μL of eDNA template in a reaction volume of 20 μL, with the following thermocycling conditions: an initial denaturing step at 95°C for 10 min, followed by 45 cycles of 95°C for 10 s, and then 56°C for 1 min. To estimate assay specificity, we performed in silico PCR by using ecoPCR (Ficetola et al. 2010) with approximately 70,000 available mitochondrial sequences from all ambystomatid species in GenBank, including the invasive A. t. mavortium. There are no natively occurring Ambystomatidae whose ranges are thought to overlap with CTS (USFWS 2017).

Table 1.

Sequences of DNA primers and TaqMan quantitative polymerase chain reaction probe used to assay environmental DNA samples for the presence of the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense. Primers and probes were designed using mitochondrial genome sequences obtained from GenBank and selected using Primer3Plus and PrimerQuest (IDT). The fluorescent TaqMan probe uses the 6-carboxyfluorescein (FAM) fluorophore and proprietary Black Hole Quencher (BHQ1) quencher molecule (IDT, Coralville, IA).

Sequences of DNA primers and TaqMan quantitative polymerase chain reaction probe used to assay environmental DNA samples for the presence of the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense. Primers and probes were designed using mitochondrial genome sequences obtained from GenBank and selected using Primer3Plus and PrimerQuest (IDT). The fluorescent TaqMan probe uses the 6-carboxyfluorescein (FAM) fluorophore and proprietary Black Hole Quencher (BHQ1) quencher molecule (IDT, Coralville, IA).
Sequences of DNA primers and TaqMan quantitative polymerase chain reaction probe used to assay environmental DNA samples for the presence of the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense. Primers and probes were designed using mitochondrial genome sequences obtained from GenBank and selected using Primer3Plus and PrimerQuest (IDT). The fluorescent TaqMan probe uses the 6-carboxyfluorescein (FAM) fluorophore and proprietary Black Hole Quencher (BHQ1) quencher molecule (IDT, Coralville, IA).

Measurement of limit of detection and limit of quantitation

The limit of detection (LOD) is a parameter used to evaluate the sensitivity of qPCR assays; the LOD is a measure of the lowest concentration of analyte (in this case, target genetic material) detectable in a qPCR assay and is distinguishable from the concentration plateau (Hunter et al. 2016). We used the calculation of the LOD and the limit of quantitation (LOQ) described by the U.S. Geological Survey's Ohio Water Microbiology Laboratory (Francy et al. 2017) based on work by Armbruster and Pry (2008). To determine the LOD and LOQ of the assay, we used synthetic double-stranded DNA fragments (gBlock Gene Fragments; IDT) matching the target amplicon. gBlock gene fragments allow for precise measurement of the number of input DNA copies in each reaction. We produced a standard curve ranging from 900 copies per reaction to 0.6 copies per reaction with the gBlock gene fragments. We replicated each concentration of gBlock standards eight times, and the standard curve included eight no-template controls.

Field sampling

For the purpose of this study, we define “eDNA sample” as a volume of water collected from a vernal pool, passed through a filter, and processed for DNA extraction. A “sampling event” is the process of collecting three replicate water samples, collecting a negative field control sample, and performing a dip-net survey of a single pool at a single visit. We collected our eDNA samples during three wet seasons (January–March in 2016, 2017, and 2018) at two vernal pool complexes regularly monitored for CTS: The Jepson Prairie Preserve in Solano County and the Dutchman Creek Conservation Bank in Merced County (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Map of locations of environmental DNA and dip-net surveys carried out to detect the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense. We immediately followed up environmental DNA sample collection at vernal pools on each reserve by dip-net surveys. Sampling was carried out January–March in 2016, 2017, and 2018 at (a) The Jepson Prairie Preserve in Solano County, California, and (b) Dutchman Creek Conservation Bank, Merced County, California.

Figure 1.

Map of locations of environmental DNA and dip-net surveys carried out to detect the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense. We immediately followed up environmental DNA sample collection at vernal pools on each reserve by dip-net surveys. Sampling was carried out January–March in 2016, 2017, and 2018 at (a) The Jepson Prairie Preserve in Solano County, California, and (b) Dutchman Creek Conservation Bank, Merced County, California.

We sampled pools that ranged in size from 3 m2 to nearly 6.8 km2. We collected replicate eDNA samples in each pool by submerging a sterile 1-L Nalgene container into the pool by hand with a single-use nitrile glove. Between uses, we submerged Nalgene containers in 10% bleach for 30 min, rinsed them in deionized water, and placed them under a UV hood for 15 min. For pools larger than approximately 500 m2, the collector wore sterile, single-use boot covers and waded a short distance into the pool to collect one or more of the replicate samples. For pools larger than approximately 10,000 m2, we sampled a single transect of approximately 10,000 m2. In total, we sampled 29 vernal pools between one and six times each for 51 total sampling events. To evaluate the rate of false positive detections and ensure the assay did not amplify California tiger salamander when not present in a pool, 16 of our sampling events were from pools with no current or historical presence of CTS (Table S2, Supplemental Material). Because CTS has been carefully tracked and monitored for multiple years at these sites, testing historically CTS–negative pools is a reliable way to monitor for false positives. To ensure that any positive amplifications we found were not the result of contamination, we included sterilized water as negative controls alongside each sample.

Sample filtration

Filtration occurred concurrently with sample processing, whether in the field or in the laboratory. To filter our eDNA samples, we filtered water samples through a 47-mm-diameter filter (glass fiber, 0.45 or 1.2 μm (Whatman, Maidstone, UK); cellulose nitrate, 0.45 μm (MilliporeSigma, Burlington, MA)) by using a peristaltic pump (Geotech Environmental Equipment, Sacramento, CA) attached to the vacuum flask with silicon tubing. We filtered water until 500 mL passed through the filter or the filter clogged. We filtered all three replicates sequentially. Immediately after field sample filtration, we filtered a 500-mL negative control by using sterilized Nanopure water (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). Between samples, we replaced all reusable filtration materials (e.g., tubing, filter manifolds) with clean units. We stored contaminated gear in sealed zip-top bags until sterilization in the laboratory with 30 min in 20% bleach, a triple rinse with deionized water, and UV sterilization in a UV hood or crosslinker for 15 min.

We conducted dip-net surveys immediately after eDNA sampling following USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS 2015). We recorded the presence–absence of any CTS larvae in dip nets. The dip-net surveys did not record the presence of CTS eggs in the pools. When pools were more than 10,000 m2, we sampled a transect identically to that used for eDNA sample collection.

Sample processing optimization

To developing the most efficacious field protocol, we refined several steps across the 3 y of sampling (for details, see Figure S1, Supplemental Material). We made all changes incrementally to limit how sampling protocols may confound results. One change included varying filter materials. We used glass fiber filters in 2016 and 2018 and cellulose nitrate filters in 2017. We also varied the how the filters were stored. In 2016, we stored filters dry in silica gel, whereas in 2017 and 2018 we stored filters in the proprietary Qiagen reagent Buffer ATL at room temperature for up to 5 d before DNA extraction. Both dry and buffer storage for filters are effective methods for storing eDNA filters at room temperature (Renshaw et al. 2015; Spens et al. 2017; Majaneva et al. 2018), and cellulose nitrate and glass fiber are both proven filter materials for eDNA (Goldberg et al. 2016).

Additional refinements of our field protocol included varying filtration to test the efficacy of laboratory filtration methods. To do this, we varied the filtering protocols between field and laboratory filtration during repeat visits to the same pools. When samples were filtered in the laboratory, unfiltered water samples were transported in a cooler on ice from the field to the laboratory and stored at 4°C until filtration within 6 h. The costs and benefits of filtering in the laboratory are still being studied, and the ideal method may be ecosystem and assay specific, but the temporary storage of unfiltered water samples up to 24 h is common practice (Handley et al. 2016; Bastos Gomes et al. 2017; Gingera et al. 2017; Hinlo et al. 2017; Fernández et al. 2018; Takahara et al. 2019).

DNA purification and analysis

After filtration, we extracted DNA from filters in a clean laboratory to minimize the potential for contamination. The clean laboratory contained no tissue or high-concentration (tissue-derived or PCR-amplified) DNA from any amphibian or vernal pool species, following the recommendations of Goldberg et al. (2016). We extracted filter-bound DNA with the DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), with the following modifications: 20 μL of Proteinase K was added to the microcentrifuge tubes containing filters stored in Qiagen reagent Buffer ATL. We cut dry filters into quarters, placed them in separate microcentrifuge tubes, and inundated them with 20 μL of Proteinase K and 180 μL of Qiagen reagent Buffer ATL. We then incubated samples on a rotary incubator (Corning Inc., Corning, NY) overnight (or for at least 12 h). Any filter material remaining after incubation was discarded and not transferred to the spin column. Finally, we used two final elutions of 60 μL of Nanopure water with a 15-min incubation at 56°C. After extraction, all samples were treated proactively for inhibition using the OneStep PCR Inhibitor Removal Kit (Zymo Research, Tustin, CA).

We tested extracted DNA for the presence of our target species by using the optimized protocols on a qPCR machine (CFX; Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). We initially tested seven sampling events, with each of the three field replicates run separately. Of these seven sets of three, all field replicate results from a sample were either positive or negative, indicating perfect agreement between field replicates. As a result, to preserve samples and reduce reagent cost we tested pooling the DNA extracts from the three field replicates from each sampling event. For this test, we ran and accessed four PCR replicates per pooled sample with the following criteria: if one PCR replicate out of four amplified, we re-ran the sample; if two or more replicates amplified, we considered it a positive detection; and if zero of four amplified, we considered it a nondetection. Each plate also included four no-template controls (water blanks) and eight standardized positive gBlock controls.

Results

Limits of detection and quantitation

We determined the LOD and LOQ for our eDNA assay from the standard curve that we produced using our gBlock gene fragments. We calculated the equation of our standard curve to be
.
formula

We used this equation to determine LOD and LOQ. Following the U.S. Geological Survey definition, we calculated the LOD for this assay to be 23 copies per reaction and the LOQ for this assay to be 75 copies per reaction (Table 2).

Table 2.

We used synthetic gBlock gene fragments (IDT) and our novel quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) primers and probe to produce a standard curve and dilution series for the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense. We report the target DNA concentration (DNA copies per reaction), number of positive amplifications (of eight replicates), average cycle quantification (Cq) value, and the standard deviation (SD) of Cq values, which we used to calculate the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) scores for the assay. The Cq value is the PCR cycle number at which the signal amplifies beyond the threshold and is considered a real amplification by the qPCR measurement equipment. We additionally plotted the log(DNA concentration) (copies/reaction) against the Cq value of each replicate to produce a line of regression. We used the slope and intercept of this line to produce an equation used to calculate the LOD and LOQ of the assay.

We used synthetic gBlock gene fragments (IDT) and our novel quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) primers and probe to produce a standard curve and dilution series for the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense. We report the target DNA concentration (DNA copies per reaction), number of positive amplifications (of eight replicates), average cycle quantification (Cq) value, and the standard deviation (SD) of Cq values, which we used to calculate the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) scores for the assay. The Cq value is the PCR cycle number at which the signal amplifies beyond the threshold and is considered a real amplification by the qPCR measurement equipment. We additionally plotted the log(DNA concentration) (copies/reaction) against the Cq value of each replicate to produce a line of regression. We used the slope and intercept of this line to produce an equation used to calculate the LOD and LOQ of the assay.
We used synthetic gBlock gene fragments (IDT) and our novel quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) primers and probe to produce a standard curve and dilution series for the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense. We report the target DNA concentration (DNA copies per reaction), number of positive amplifications (of eight replicates), average cycle quantification (Cq) value, and the standard deviation (SD) of Cq values, which we used to calculate the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) scores for the assay. The Cq value is the PCR cycle number at which the signal amplifies beyond the threshold and is considered a real amplification by the qPCR measurement equipment. We additionally plotted the log(DNA concentration) (copies/reaction) against the Cq value of each replicate to produce a line of regression. We used the slope and intercept of this line to produce an equation used to calculate the LOD and LOQ of the assay.

Field sampling results

Our assay and the dip-net surveys both detected CTS larvae in the same 14 of 51 sampling events, for a 100% agreement rate between positive dip-net results and positive eDNA surveys. In an additional 14 sampling events, our eDNA assay detected CTS when the dip-net surveys did not, suggesting recent presence. In 23 sampling events, neither the dip-net survey nor the eDNA assay detected CTS, including the 16 sampling events from sites where CTS was historically absent. There were no instances where the dip-nets detected CTS but the eDNA assay did not (Table 3).

Table 3.

Results of the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense environmental DNA (eDNA) and dip-net surveys. Sites were defined as historically present (35) or historically absent (16) of the California tiger salamander. Results compare eDNA samples taken immediately before dip-net sampling at a single vernal pool during a single visit. We performed dip-net surveys according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey guidelines to identify larval California tiger salamander.

Results of the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense environmental DNA (eDNA) and dip-net surveys. Sites were defined as historically present (35) or historically absent (16) of the California tiger salamander. Results compare eDNA samples taken immediately before dip-net sampling at a single vernal pool during a single visit. We performed dip-net surveys according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey guidelines to identify larval California tiger salamander.
Results of the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense environmental DNA (eDNA) and dip-net surveys. Sites were defined as historically present (35) or historically absent (16) of the California tiger salamander. Results compare eDNA samples taken immediately before dip-net sampling at a single vernal pool during a single visit. We performed dip-net surveys according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey guidelines to identify larval California tiger salamander.

Protocol optimization results

We compared our detection results between filtration location protocols and filter materials. In this study, the results suggest our assay was robust to sampling methodology, with no evidence that variation in protocol methods affected detection rates (Table S3, Supplemental Material). Because we had no instances where dip-net surveys detected CTS but our eDNA assay did not, any analysis of the impact of protocol variation on the assay must necessarily be speculative, and we cannot conclude that any combination of filter or filtration location outperformed any other.

Discussion

We developed a new qPCR-based eDNA assay that offers improved detection of the presence of CTS larvae in vernal pools compared with dip-net survey methods. This assay gives highly concordant results with traditional dip-net surveys, with all positive dip-net detections also detected by our eDNA assay. The assay was found to perform well even with some variations in field sampling protocols. Our early-season positive results point to further uses for our assay, including detection of reproductive material (gametes) left behind by adults. The CTS eDNA assay presented here offers an effective new tool to monitor Central Valley CTS larvae that could, in the future, be expanded and used in other geographic areas with additional development.

One advantage of eDNA monitoring for CTS is that it minimizes human disturbance of vernal pools while determining presence–absence. For vernal pool sampling, eDNA sample collections occur without entering pools by using commercially available long-pole samplers or sampling backpacks (Thomas et al. 2018). Environmental DNA sampling can reduce habitat disturbance and may limit disease transmission between sites via human contact with water during dip-net sampling. Furthermore, eDNA sample collection can be performed without the need for federal permits or species-specific training.

We found early-season eDNA detection in samples collected up to a month before dip-net surveys detected the presence of larval CTS. It is possible that the DNA detected in these samples sourced from gametes or embryonic CTS before larval hatch, or from reproductive material or other DNA shed from breeding adults. Larval hatch occurs 10–28 d after breeding (USFWS 2017), after adult salamanders have left the breeding pool. We had no positive detections for CTS in pools considered historically negative for CTS. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that our early-season detections are false positives. In addition, the 14 sampling events that were positive with our eDNA assay, but negative in dip-net surveys, were all in pools that supported populations of CTS larvae later the same year. Although reproductive material is abundant in the pools during breeding season, it would likely degrade rapidly in warm weather; elevated temperatures change several biotic and abiotic factors known to influence the decay of genetic material (e.g., water pH, microbial community abundance; Eichmiller et al. 2016). Elevated early-season temperatures may reduce the abundance (and thus detection) of gametes and produce eDNA false negatives between egg laying and larval emergence, although during this period dip nets would also detect no CTS larvae. Managers will have to decide when to use eDNA surveys based on their needs and questions.

Our assay is designed to detect a locus on the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA of a CTS salamander. We used mitochondrial DNA because of its high copy number relative to nuclear DNA, which increases the likelihood of a detection in an eDNA sample. However, due to its maternal inheritance, mitochondrial DNA cannot distinguish between a pure CTS and a hybrid CTS × A. t. mavortium that is maternally CTS. Our assay will not detect hybrids that are paternally CTS.

Management recommendations

For managers wanting an efficient way to monitor the presence–absence of CTS without dip-netting, we recommend use of this assay with eDNA sampling in spring after larval emergence. However, it is important to remember that our assay cannot provide data about CTS abundance or health, so dip-netting is still necessary when more than presence–absence data is required, such as count data or larval maturity information. Additional field testing of our assay could introduce potential other uses for this survey methodology, such as its use as an early-season predictive tool for pools that are expected to support CTS larvae later in the year. This could allow managers to take early action to protect these pools. As global amphibian decline has intensified the monitoring and management of salamander populations, eDNA has proven to be a successful method for monitoring freshwater amphibians in general and salamanders in particular (Pilliod et al. 2014; Spear et al. 2015; Katano et al. 2017; Preißler et al. 2019). Our assay expands the utility of eDNA to monitoring the threatened CTS, providing managers with an additional highly accurate method of tracking the spatial distribution of larval CTS in the Central Valley.

Supplemental Material

Please note: The Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supplemental material. Queries should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Table S1. Record of the mitochondrial genetic sequences used to develop and validate our Ambystoma californiense quantitative PCR assay in silico by using MEGA7 (Kumar et al. 2016) and ecoPCR (Ficetola et al. 2010). The scientific name and common name for each species is given, along with the National Center for Biotechnology Information accession number that can be used to reference the original sequence at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. When the original sequence is published, the citation is included in the table. These accession numbers represent whole mitochondrial genome sequences for our target salamander species and a variety of other Ambystomatidae. Not all ambystomatid species were available for comparison. No other ambystomatid species is known to natively co-occur with A. californiense (USFWS 2017).

Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/052019-JFWM-041.S1 (35 KB XLS).

Table S2. Record of California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense environmental DNA and dip-net sampling events undertaken January–March in 2016, 2017, and 2018 in California. This record includes a unique identifier for each pool (pools that begin with D are located at the Dutchman Creek Conservation Bank in Merced County; pools that begin with J are located at the Jepson Prairie Preserve in Solano County); the latitude and longitude of the vernal pool (decimal degrees) and the sampling date; the dip-net sampling results (0 for a nondetection and 1 for a detection); the eDNA assay results (0 for a nondetection and 1 for a detection); the filter type (GF for glass fiber or CN for cellulose nitrate); the filtration protocol (in the field or in the laboratory); the historical status of the California tiger salamander in that pool; the water volume filtered (per biological replicate and averaged across replicates, in milliliters); and pool area (in square meters).

Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/052019-JFWM-041.S2 (45 KB XLS).

Table S3. Results of California tiger salamander (CTS) Ambystoma californiense environmental DNA and dip-net surveys broken down by (a) filter type and (b) filtration protocol. Because our assay has perfect agreement with positive dip-net survey results, all considerations about the effect of various protocols on environmental DNA assay detection rate must be speculative. There are seven cases where there is historical or known presence of the CTS in the pool, but neither the dip-net nor the environmental DNA assay detected the CTS. These cases may speculatively represent failures of our assay to detect CTS. Of these, three assays used a cellulose nitrate filter and four assays used glass fiber. Three were filtered in the field and four in the laboratory. We conclude that there is no evidence that protocol variation impacted the detection rate of our assay.

Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/052019-JFWM-041.S3 (34 KB XLS).

Figure S1. Flowchart of protocol variations for our 51 sampling events (“samples”), each comprising three replicate filters and a negative control filter. In 2016, we used a 0.45-μm glass fiber filter with a reusable 47-mm filter manifold (Advantec, Durham, NC), filtered immediately in the field, and stored dry in silica gel. In 2017, we used a 0.45-μm cellulose nitrate filter (Sterlitech) housed in a single-use filter manifold. We varied our filtration between the field and the laboratory and stored filters in Qiagen Buffer ATL. In 2018, we used a 1.2-μm glass fiber filter (Whatman, Maidstone, UK), did all filtration in the laboratory, and stored filters in Qiagen Buffer ATL. We bleach sterilized all reusable equipment (tubing, filter manifolds, flasks) in 20% bleach for 30 min, triple rinsed the equipment, and then UV sterilized it for 15 min between uses.

Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/052019-JFWM-041.S4 (173 KB JPG).

Reference S5.Grant EHC, Muths E, Katz RA, Canessa, S, Adams MJ, Ballard JR, Berger L, Briggs CJ, Coleman J, Gray MJ, Harris MC, Harris RN, Hossack B, Huyvaert KP, Kolby JE, Lips KR, Lovich RE, McCallum HI, Mendelson JRI, Nanjappa P, Olson DH, Powers JG, Richgels, KLD, Russell RE, Schmidt BR, der Sluijs AS, Watry MK, Woodhams DC, White CL. 2016. Salamander chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans) in the United States — developing research, monitoring, and management strategies. Open-File Report 2015-1233. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey.

Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/052019-JFWM-041.S5 (821 KB PDF); also available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1233/ofr20151233.pdf.

Reference S2.[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Survey guidelines for listed large branchiopods. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California.

Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/052019-JFWM-041.S6 (12.57 MB PDF); also available at https://www.fws.gov/ventura/docs/species/protocols/vpshrimp/shrimp.pdf.

Reference S3.[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Recovery plan for the central California distinct population segment of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California.

Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/052019-JFWM-041.S7 (750 KB PDF); also available at https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/2017/06-14/docs/Signed_Central_CTS_Recovery_Plan.pdf.

Acknowledgments

This project was funded through cooperative agreement R15AC00040 between University of California, Davis, and the USFWS, with additional funding from the University of California Natural Reserve System. We thank the land managers who provided access to study sites: the University of California Natural Reserve System and V. Boucher at Jepson Prairie Preserve and M. Gausse and T. Collins with Westervelt Ecological Services at Dutchman Creek Conservation Bank. We thank and acknowledge the two anonymous reviewers and Associate Editor for thoughtful commentary that greatly improved an earlier version of this survey. We also thank A. Goodbla, A. Benjamin, A. Coen, K. McGee, H. Hwang, P. Tran, J. Bachiero, and D. Prince for help collecting samples in the field. We acknowledge the help of R. Nagarajan, K. Deiner, A. Schreier, A. Holmes, and D. Gille, who provided feedback and guidance.

Any use of trade, product, website, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References

References
Anderson
JT,
Davis
CA.
2013
.
Wetland techniques. Volume 1
.
Dordrecht
:
Springer Netherlands
.
Armbruster
DA,
Pry
T.
2008
.
Limit of blank, limit of detection and limit of quantitation
.
Clinical Biochemical Review
29
(Suppl. i)
:
S49
S52
.
Bastos Gomes
G,
Hutson
KS,
Domingos
JA,
Chung
C,
Hayward
S,
Miller
TL,
Jerry
DR.
2017
.
Use of environmental DNA (eDNA) and water quality data to predict protozoan parasites outbreaks in fish farms
.
Aquaculture
479
:
467
473
.
Biggs
J,
Ewald
N,
Valentini
A,
Gaboriaud
C,
Dejean
T,
Griffiths
RA,
Foster
J,
Wilkinson
JW,
Arnell
A,
Brotherton
P,
Williams
P,
Dunn
F.
2015
.
Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)
.
Biological Conservation
183
:
19
28
.
California Endangered Species Act of 1970,
as amended, Fish and Game Code, Chapter 1.5, sections 2050–2115
.
Curtis
AE,
Paton
PWC.
2010
.
Assessing detection probabilities of larval amphibians and macroinvertebrates in isolated ponds
.
Wetlands
30
:
901
914
.
Eichmiller
J,
Best
SE,
Sorensen
PW.
2016
.
Effects of temperature and trophic state on degradation of environmental DNA in lake water
.
Environmental Science and Technology
50
:
1859
1867
.
Fernández
S,
Rodríguez
S,
Martínez
JL,
Borrell
YJ,
Ardura
A,
García-Vázquez
E.
2018
.
Evaluating freshwater macroinvertebrates from eDNA metabarcoding: a river Nalón case study
.
PLoS ONE
13
:
e0201741
.
Ficetola
G,
Coissac
E,
Zundel
S,
Riaz
T,
Shehzad
W,
Bessière
J,
Taberlet
P,
Pompanon
F.
2010
.
An in silico approach for the evaluation of DNA barcodes
.
BMC Genomics
11
:
434
.
Fisher
RN,
Shaffer
HB.
1996
.
The decline of amphibians in California's Great Central Valley
.
Conservation Biology
10
:
1387
1397
.
Francy
DS,
Bushon
RN,
Cicale
JR,
Brady
AMG,
Kephart
CM,
Stelzer
EA,
Ecker
CD.
2017
.
Quality assurance/quality control manual
.
Columbus
:
Ohio Water Microbiology Laboratory
.
Gingera
T,
Bajno
R,
Docker
M,
Reist
J.
2017
.
Environmental DNA as a detection tool for zebra mussels Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas, 1771) at the forefront of an invasion event in Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
.
Management of Biological Invasions
8
:
287
300
.
Goldberg
CS,
Strickler
KM,
Fremier
AK.
2018
.
Degradation and dispersion limit environmental DNA detection of rare amphibians in wetlands: increasing efficacy of sampling designs
.
Science of the Total Environment
633
:
695
703
.
Goldberg
CS,
Turner
CR,
Deiner
K,
Klymus
KE,
Thomsen
PF,
Murphy
MA,
Spear
SF,
McKee
A,
Oyler-McCance
SJ,
Cornman
RS,
Laramie
MB,
Mahon
AR,
Lance
RF,
Pilliod
DS,
Strickler
KM,
Waits
LP,
Fremier
AK,
Takahara
T,
Herder
JE,
Taberlet
J,
Richard
F.
2016
.
Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species
.
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
7
:
1299
1307
.
Grant
EHC,
Muths
E,
Katz
RA,
Canessa,
S,
Adams
MJ,
Ballard
JR,
Berger
L,
Briggs
CJ,
Coleman
J,
Gray
MJ,
Harris
MC,
Harris
RN,
Hossack
B,
Huyvaert
KP,
Kolby
JE,
Lips
KR,
Lovich
RE,
McCallum
HI,
Mendelson
JRI,
Nanjappa
P,
Olson
DH,
Powers
JG,
Richgels,
KLD,
Russell
RE,
Schmidt
BR,
der Sluijs
AS,
Watry
MK,
Woodhams
DC,
White
CL.
2016
.
Salamander chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans) in the United States — developing research, monitoring, and management strategies. Open-File Report 2015-1233
.
Reston, Virginia
:
U.S. Geological Survey (see Supplemental Material, Reference S1)
.
Greenberg
CH,
Zarnoch
SJ,
Austin
JD.
2018
.
Long term amphibian monitoring at wetlands lacks power to detect population trends
.
Biological Conservation
228
:
120
131
.
Greenberg
DA,
Palen
WJ.
2019
.
A deadly amphibian disease goes global
.
Science
363
:
1386
1388
.
Handley
LL,
Read
DS,
Hahn
C,
Winfield
IANJ.
2016
.
Environmental DNA metabarcoding of lake fish communities reflects long-term data from established survey methods
.
Molecular Ecology
25
:
3101
3119
.
Hinlo
R,
Furlan
E,
Suitor
L,
Gleeson
D.
2017
.
Environmental DNA monitoring and management of invasive fish: comparison of eDNA and fyke netting
.
Management of Biological Invasions
8
:
89
100
.
Hunter
M,
Dorazio
R,
Butterfield
J,
Meigs-Friend
G,
Nico
L,
Ferrante
J.
2016
.
Detection limits of quantitative and digital PCR assays and their influence in presence-absence surveys of environmental DNA
.
Molecular Ecology Resources
17
:
221
229
.
Katano
I,
Harada
K,
Doi
H,
Souma
R,
Minamoto
T.
2017
.
Environmental DNA method for estimating salamander distribution in headwater streams, and a comparison of water sampling methods
.
PLoS ONE
12
:
1
15
.
King
J.
1998
.
Loss of diversity as a consequence of habitat destruction in California vernal pools
.
Pages
119
123
in
Witham
CW,
editor.
Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems
.
Sacramento
:
California Native Plant Society
.
Kumar
S,
Stecher
G,
Tamura
K.
2016
.
MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets
.
Molecular Biology and Evolution
33
:
1870
1874
.
Majaneva
M,
Diserud
OH,
Eagle
SHC,
Boström
E,
Hajibabaei
M,
Ekrem
T.
2018
.
Environmental DNA filtration techniques affect recovered biodiversity
.
Scientific Reports
8
:
1
11
.
Pilliod
DS,
Goldberg
CS,
Arkle
RS,
Waits
LP.
2014
.
Factors influencing detection of eDNA from a stream-dwelling amphibian
.
Molecular Ecology Resources
14
:
109
116
.
Pitt
AL,
Shinskie
JL,
Tavano
JJ,
Hartzell
SM,
Delahunty
T,
Spear
SF.
2017
.
Decline of a giant salamander assessed with historical records, environmental DNA and multi-scale habitat data
.
Freshwater Biology
62
:
967
976
.
Preißler
K,
Watzal
AD,
Vences
M,
Steinfartz
S.
2019
.
Detection of elusive fire salamander larvae (Salamandra salamandra) in streams via environmental DNA
.
Amphibia-Reptilia
40
:
55
64
.
Renshaw
MA,
Olds
BP,
Jerde
CL,
Mcveigh
MM,
Lodge
DM.
2015
.
The room temperature preservation of filtered environmental DNA samples and assimilation into a phenol-chloroform-isoamyl alcohol DNA extraction
.
Molecular Ecology Resources
15
:
168
176
.
Searcy
C,
Shaffer
H.
2011
.
Determining the migration distance of a vagile vernal pool specialist: how much land is required for conservation of California tiger salamanders?
Pages
73
87
in
Alexander
DG
and
Schlising
RA,
editors.
Research and recovery in vernal pool landscapes
.
Chico
:
California State University
.
Skelly
DK,
Richardson
JL.
2009
.
Larval Sampling
.
Pages
55
70
in
Dodd
C
Jr,
editor.
Amphibian ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques
.
New York
:
Oxford University Press
.
Spear
SF,
Groves
JD,
Williams
LA,
Waits
LP.
2015
.
Using environmental DNA methods to improve detectability in a hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) monitoring program
.
Biological Conservation
183
:
38
45
.
Spens
J,
Evans
AR,
Halfmaerten
D,
Knudsen
SW,
Sengupta
ME,
Mak
SST,
Sigsgaard
EE,
Hellström
M.
2017
.
Comparison of capture and storage methods for aqueous macrobial eDNA using an optimized extraction protocol: advantage of enclosed filter
.
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
8
:
635
645
.
Takahara
T,
Ikebuchi
T,
Doi
H,
Minamoto
T.
2019
.
Using environmental DNA to estimate the seasonal distribution and habitat preferences of a Japanese basket clam in Lake Shinji, Japan
.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
221
:
15
20
.
Thomas
A,
Howard
J,
Nguyen
P,
Seimon
T,
Goldberg
C.
2018
.
ANDeTM: a fully integrated environmental DNA sampling system
.
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
9
:
1379
1385
.
Trenham
PC,
Shaffer
HB,
Koenig
WD,
Stromberg
MR.
2006
.
Life history and demographic variation in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
.
Copeia
2000
:
365
377
.
Untergasser
A,
Nijveen
H,
Rao
X,
Bisseling
T,
Geurts
R,
Leunissen
JAM.
2007
.
Primer3Plus, an enhanced web interface to Primer3
.
Nucleic Acids Research
35
:
W71
W74
.
[ESA] U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Pub. L. No. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 (Dec. 28, 1973)
.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2015
.
Survey guidelines for listed large branchiopods. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California
(see Supplemental Material, Reference S2).
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2017
.
Recovery plan for the central California distinct population segment of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California
(see Supplemental Material, Reference S3).
Vörös
J,
Márton
O,
Schmidt
BR,
Gál
JT,
Jelić
D.
2017
.
Surveying Europe's only cave-dwelling chordate species (Proteus anguinus) using environmental DNA
.
PLoS ONE
12
:
e0170945
.

Author notes

Citation: Kieran SR, Hull JM, Finger AJ. 2020. Using environmental DNA to monitor the spatial distribution of the California tiger salamander. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 11(2):609–617; e1944-687X. https://doi.org/10.3996/052019-JFWM-041

Competing Interests

The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.