Results and Discussion
In this study, we have demonstrated that the presence of our targeted threatened species, the koala, and its co-occurring terrestrial mammalian community can be detected from the collection of airborne eDNA under natural conditions. All 11 sampled sites detected the presence of terrestrial mammals (Figure 2) and using a custom taxonomic assignment strategy, we identified the presence of nine taxonomic families, most of which, apart from the Macropodidae and Phalangeridae (kangaroos/wallabies and possums, respectively), were assigned to the species level, including our primary target, the koala. Moreover, we show that airborne eDNA enables the detection of both native and introduced species simultaneously, highlighting the utility of this untargeted sampling approach for the identification of potential biodiversity threats. Dogs, for instance, are a known threat to koalas (Beyer et al. 2018) and were detected from a high abundance of reads across our 11 sampled sites (Figure 2). We also identified common, but problematic, invasive species including the black rat (Rattus rattus ) and the hare (Lepus europaeus ) (Barney et al. 2021, Finlayson et al. 2022). We discuss below how continued methodological optimisation will enable the resolution of some teething problems.
First, and most problematic, is the presence of high level of non-informative co-sampled DNA (e.g. human and domesticated animals). Even with taking the utmost care and using published human DNA blocking primers (Vestheim and Jarman 2008b), we found that many reads were identified as human (Supplementary Table 3). We found that 53% of reads, on average, were lost per sample as they were identified as human DNA and a total of 5 samples were lost as only human DNA was amplified (99% human reads; Supplementary Table 1). While we know that human co-sampling and contamination is a common re-occurring problem when using eDNA (Harper et al. 2019, Leempoel et al. 2020), we also found that, under natural conditions, precious sequencing reads are further lost to non-informative domesticated species, such as cows and horses (Figure 2). This is despite these animals not being identified in faunal transects or prior human led field surveys at the sampling location. The presence of such high abundance of non-informative co-sampled airborne DNA is a challenge we ought to tackle as it likely outcompetes the lower abundance of airborne DNA particles shed by and therefore collected from lower-density species of interest including threatened, endangered, or cryptic elusive species. Our high level of non-informative co-sampled DNA might be one of the reasons why our only sample which detected the presence of koala DNA (Site 11. Figure 2) was the filter located directly beneath a tree occupied by a koala while two additional sampling sites (Site 5 and 2) positioned 50 - 30 meters away from koalas failed to detect their DNA. Whilst this high level of sensitivity in detection range allows us to confirm koala presence with a high degree of confidence, the use of alternative human DNA blocking primers (Boessenkool et al. 2012) coupled with targeted primers to enrich the DNA abundance of low density or low biomass target species prior to Illumina sequencing may help increase our rate and range of detection of low-density, low-biomass species like the koala. A targeted qPCR assay approach will require additional investment in development but when used in concert with an untargeted approach will allow for a more inclusive representation of the occupancy of less abundant species.
Second, we found that our ability to assign species level taxonomic rank was limited by the small target sequence length. While small sequence length is often best when dealing with degraded DNA, a characteristic of eDNA (Beng and Corlett 2020), we identified it imposed some limitations to the taxonomic assignment of our ASVs. For instance, the lack of genetic variation between the mountain and common brushtail possum (1 bp difference) made it difficult for us to assign our ASV to either species with high certainty even though our ASV was 100% similar to the mountain brushtail possum. This is because 1 bp difference between sequences could easily fall within the margin of sequencing error (Stoler and Nekrutenko 2021). Similarly, we were not able to disentangle ASV 19 from a red-neck wallaby or a grey kangaroo because these reference sequences differed by 1 bp. In contrast, we found that some of our ASVs (ASV 14 and ASV 23) contained levels of genetic variation high enough to make taxonomic assignments challenging. The Macropididae ASV #14, for instance, differed from both the Red-Necked and the Swamp Wallaby reference sequence by 5 bp. It, however, phylogenetically clustered with the swamp wallaby (Figure 1) because of a shared conserved region separating them both from the red-necked wallaby. A similar trend was identified for our detected ring-tailed possum ASV (ASV #23) which, while it clustered with our reference ring-tailed possum sequence, nonetheless differed from it by 6 bp. Ecological surveys of our sampling site detected the presence of those three species indicating that, while imperfect at this stage, our taxonomic assignments are likely correct. To continue to improve the robustness of taxonomic assignment, we recommend considering the geographical provenance of reference sequences because of expected geographic patterns of genetic diversity. The ring-tailed possum 16S reference sequence publicly available, for instance, came from an animal located in Western Australia. We therefore propose that prior to deploying airborne eDNA for detection of a suite of target terrestrial species, it is critical to develop a relevant mitochondrial genomic database to ensure accurate taxonomic resolution can be reached. This will include assessing if the targeted sequence region(s) contain sufficient variation to disentangle closely related species and are of geographic relevance to your sampling location. Challenges to obtain material and data from sensitive species groups can be overcome by engagement with stakeholders, researchers, museums and the community. This is particularly important to the deployment of airborne eDNA technology in natural settings where, unlike zoological facilities (Clare et al. 2022), many closely related species overlap with each other and are only differentiable by a few base pairs resulting in less refined taxonomic resolution or potential misattributed taxonomic assignment.
Last and similar to other eDNA studies (Lusk 2014, Xing et al. 2022), we demonstrate the importance of filtering stringency in the management of DNA contamination (see Figure S1). DNA extracted from a skin biopsy of the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus ) was used to estimate and control for DNA contamination in our downstream bioinformatic pipeline, as this species is not found at or near the sampling location. Like many other studies, we did identify a significant amount of DNA cross-contamination which was present in our dolphin sample when we only used forward reads in our bioinformatic pipeline. We, however, found that the merging of ASVs got rid of all DNA cross-contamination which we underline as a necessary step in any future eDNA studies (Supplementary Figure 1).