NONINVASIVE GENETIC SAMPLING TOOLS FOR WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS: A REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACCURATE DATA COLLECTION

By L. Waits, D. Paetkau. 2005

749 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Genetics, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/80548a1280ca4b003bf0bdd22ead414aa970e0d8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. L. Waits
2. M. Barnes
3. David M. Lodge
4. M. D. Schwartz
5. John M. Drake
6. D. Paetkau
7. E. Randi
8. R. Honeycutt

In Genetics

1. M. D. Schwartz
2. L. Waits
3. E. Randi
4. F. Allendorf
5. R. Honeycutt
6. R. Deyoung
7. Gordon Luikart
8. D. Paetkau

In Molecular Biology

1. M. Barnes
2. R. Honeycutt
3. R. Deyoung
4. L. Waits
5. E. Randi
6. C. Jerde
7. D. Paetkau
8. F. Allendorf

Citations in the corpus

• Genetics and conservation of wolves Canis lupus in Europe (2011, background): “The recent developments of population genetics and genomics, and non-invasive genetic sampling (NGS), now offer novel opportunities to study the dynamics of wolf populations, and implement long-term, wide-range and costeffective monitoring programmes (Waits & Paetkau 2005).”
• Comparison of noninvasive genetic and camera-trapping techniques for surveying snow leopards (2011, background): “Noninvasive genetic techniques also enable estimation of population size and density and are becoming more common for wildlife monitoring (Schwartz et al. 2007; Waits and Paetkau 2005).”
• THE MOLECULAR TOOLBOX: GENETIC TECHNIQUES IN WILDLIFE ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT (2005, methodology): “Noninvasive sampling has limitations in terms of reliability and increased cost of obtaining genotypes (Goossens et al. 1998, Taberlet and Waits 1998, Waits and Paetkau 2005), but it has proven to be a useful method for estimating population size in some cases.”
• The reintroduction of the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) into the Netherlands: hidden life revealed by noninvasive genetic monitoring (2010, background): “…faeces, or urine without handling, capturing or even observing the animals (Kohn and Wayne 1997; Taberlet et al. 1999; Piggott and Taylor 2003; Waits and Paetkau 2005) yields details on elusive and nocturnal animals like bears (Kendall et al. 2009), coyotes (Kohn et al. 1999; Prugh et al.…”
• Estimation of census and effective population sizes: the increasing usefulness of DNA-based approaches (2010, background): “One difference between genetic markrecapture and traditional mark-recapture is a concern about poor data quality caused by genotyping errors that can be common with noninvasive DNA samples (see reviews by Taberlet et al. 1999; Pompanon et al. 2005; Waits and Paetkau 2005).”
• An eDNA approach to detect eastern hellbenders (Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis) using samples of water (2012, neutral): “2001) among other population-level metrics (see reviews by Taberlet and Luikart 1999; Waits and Paetkau 2005; Beja-Pereira et al. 2009).”
• Effects of time and rainfall on PCR success using DNA extracted from deer fecal pellets (2010, background): “This approach is useful for large, hard-to-study, mammals such as ursids, canids, felids, and mustelids, and with endangered species (Waits and Paetkau 2005).”
• An evaluation of field and noninvasive genetic methods for estimating Eurasian otter population size (2009, background): “NGS projects should follow rigorous standards and guidelines, both during field collection and laboratory analysis ( Waits and Paetkau 2005 ).”
• Estimating abundance of the remnant Apennine brown bear population using multiple noninvasive genetic data sources (2015, background): “Additionally, the accuracy of DNA-based surveys can be enhanced with quality assurance protocols to detect and eliminate genotyping errors (Waits and Paetkau 2005) and using a sufficient number of variable genetic markers to reliably identify individuals (Mills et al. 2000; Waits et al. 2001).”
• Characterizing the distribution of an endangered salmonid using environmental DNA analysis (2015, neutral): “All field samples were run in triplicate to ensure detection of degraded or low-quantity DNA (Waits and Paetkau, 2005).”
• Risk Analysis and Bioeconomics of Invasive Species to Inform Policy and Management (2016, background): “Genetics-based surveillance using environmental DNA (eDNA) is now possible in terrestrial (110, 111) and aquatic (112) environments.”
• From eDNA to citizen science: emerging tools for the early detection of invasive species (2020, background): “Classical noninvasive genetic sampling uses biological material deposited by an organism of interest (eg feces, hair strands, urine, feathers, scent marks, eggshells, sloughed epidermal cells) without the need for handling or capturing the organism itself (Waits and Paetkau 2005).”
• Population monitoring of snow leopards using noninvasive collection of scat samples: a pilot study (2008, background): “Molecular methods incorporating noninvasive sampling via the collection of scats or hairs have become common for population monitoring of carnivores (Taberlet, Waits & Luikart, 1999; Piggott & Taylor, 2003; Waits & Paetkau, 2005; Schwartz et al., 2007).”
• Characterization of target nuclear DNA from faeces reduces technical issues associated with the assumptions of low-quality and quantity template (2007, methodology): “Our wiping technique differs from the surface scraping technique used by Fernando et al. (2003) and Wehausen et al. (2004), which may bring solid faecal material and consequently inhibitors into the extraction procedure (Waits and Paetkau 2005).”