Kenai National Wildlife Refuge invasive fish surveys - 2024

データ レコード

この オカレンス（観察データと標本) リソース内のデータは、1 つまたは複数のデータ テーブルとして生物多様性データを共有するための標準化された形式であるダーウィン コア アーカイブ (DwC-A) として公開されています。 コア データ テーブルには、755 レコードが含まれています。

拡張データ テーブルは2 件存在しています。拡張レコードは、コアのレコードについての追加情報を提供するものです。 各拡張データ テーブル内のレコード数を以下に示します。

この IPT はデータをアーカイブし、データ リポジトリとして機能します。データとリソースのメタデータは、 ダウンロード セクションからダウンロードできます。 バージョン テーブルから公開可能な他のバージョンを閲覧でき、リソースに加えられた変更を知ることができます。

バージョン

次の表は、公にアクセス可能な公開バージョンのリソースのみ表示しています。

引用方法

研究者はこの研究内容を以下のように引用する必要があります。:

Bowser M, Adams T, Artaiz S, Bailey C, Davis N, Inman K, Robustellini K, Watts D, Yorkston R (2025). Kenai National Wildlife Refuge invasive fish surveys - 2024. Version 1.9. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Occurrence dataset. https://ipt.gbif.us/resource?r=kenai-national-wildlife-refuge-aquatic-invasive-fish-surveys-2024&v=1.9

権利

研究者は権利に関する下記ステートメントを尊重する必要があります。:

パブリッシャーとライセンス保持者権利者は United States Fish and Wildlife Service。 To the extent possible under law, the publisher has waived all rights to these data and has dedicated them to the Public Domain (CC0 1.0). Users may copy, modify, distribute and use the work, including for commercial purposes, without restriction.

GBIF登録

このリソースをはGBIF と登録されており GBIF UUID: cdcab0cb-e9d4-44c0-bac2-c3891805998aが割り当てられています。   GBIF-US によって承認されたデータ パブリッシャーとして GBIF に登録されているUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service が、このリソースをパブリッシュしました。

キーワード

Occurrence; Observation

連絡先

地理的範囲

The geographic extent included freshwater lakes and ponds in the vicinity of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska, USA, including Threemile Lake in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska USA.

生物分類学的範囲

We surveyed for all non-native fish that could occur in this area, but with a particular focus on northern pike.

時間的範囲

プロジェクトデータ

説明がありません

プロジェクトに携わる要員:

収集方法

We selected 17 lakes to survey for northern pike in 2024, mostly basing our selections on the prioritization of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Invasive Species Lake Prioritization (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2022). We also took into account recent pike surveys, avoiding lakes that had been surveyed for pike in the last 10 years or where surveys are planned for 2025. Most waterbodies we selected were not known to contain non-native fish, but we chose to survey two waterbodies where northern pike were known to occur in order to obtain estimates of detection probability (as defined by MacKenzie et al., 2002, 2006) for our methods. In response to a report of northern pike in Dolly Varden Lake that we received after our initial surveys had been completed, we surveyed this additional waterbody. To estimate acreages of the littoral zone as defined by Dunker et al. (2022) as all of the lake area with a depth less than 4 m, we referred to available bathymetric maps. For lakes where no bathymetric maps were available, we examined aerial and satellite imagery to estimate acreage of the littoral zone for each lake. We allocated samples across the selected lakes by first allocating 5 samples to each lake, then we allocated the rest of the samples with the number of samples being proportional to estimated littoral acreages of the lakes, yielding sample sizes of 6–14 samples per lake. In order to to minimize disturbance of nesting swans, we adjusted our schedule and selection of lakes based on results of spring swan surveys. Where nesting swans were present, we removed these lakes from our set of lakes to be surveyed and substituted other lakes where nesting swans were not present. We conducted eDNA surveys for northern pike in May 2024 as early in the season as was feasible for two reasons: First, northern pike are likely most detectable by eDNA methods in the spring due to spawning behavior, shedding more DNA into the water in the spring than at other times of the year (Dunker et al., 2022). Second, we wanted to send off samples early in the season so that results were available before the end of the field season, enabling us to follow up any potential positive detections with gillnet surveys. Within each lake to be surveyed, we selected sampling locations before going out into the field using Google Earth Pro (https://www.google.com/earth/versions/#earth-pro), spreading the sampling locations over the littoral zone following the guidance of Dunker et al. (2022).

Method step description:

1. We collected most water samples using eDNA water sampling kits provided by Jonah Ventures (Boulder, Colorado) following the kits’ sampling instructions (Jonah Ventures, 2022). At each site, using gloved hands, we first drew up 60 ml into a syringe from a depth of 1 to 15 cm. We pushed this water through a 25 mm diameter, 1 µm Entegris nylon syringe filter. We repeated these steps three times for a total of 180 ml or until the filter became clogged, resulting in water samples ranging in volume from 60 ml to 180 ml. We dried the filters by using the syringe to push air through them. We then filled the filter cartridges with Triton X-100 preservative. For our set of samples from Dolly Varden Lake we filtered 1.7–5.9 l of water per sample through Smith-Root 5.0 µm filters (SKU: 10995-25) using a Smith-Root backpack sampler (Smith-Root, Inc, 2024). Filtered Samples were kept cool in a refrigerator until they could be shipped out for processing.
2. Using an R, version 4.3.3 (R Core Team, 2024) script (Bowser, 2024), we randomly assigned 2/3 of the samples to be processed by a qPCR assay designed to detect northern pike (Dunker et al., 2016) and 1/3 of the samples to be processed by fish metabarcoding (Miya et al., 2015). All of our initial set of samples were shipped to Jonah Ventures LLC (Boulder, Colorado). We shipped a second set of samples to the Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (Bozeman, Montana) for processing.
3. For qPCR samples processed by Jonah Ventures, sample filters, lysis buffer, and proteinase K were heated to 56 °C for one hour. Under a laminar flow hood, warm lysis buffers were pushed through the filter housing and all supernatant was collected in the corresponding lysate tube. Tubes were placed in an incubator overnight at 56 °C. After incubation, the lysate tubes were immediately processed. Genomic DNA from samples was extracted using the DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (250) (catalog number 69506) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Whole filters were used for genomic DNA extraction. Genomic DNA was eluted into 200 µl and frozen at -20 °C. An amplicon from the cytochrome oxidase, subunit I (COI) gene was amplified via qPCR from genomic DNA samples using Northern Pike COI FWD (5’ CCTTCCCC CGCATAAA TAATATAA 3’) and REV (5’ GTGTTGAA GCTGGTGC TGGTAC 3’) primers, and Northern Pike COI Probe (5’ /56-FAM/ CT+TC+TG+AC+TT+CTC+CCC/ 3IABkFQ/ 3’) of Dunker et al. (2016). A standard curve was generated for each run to correspond to targeted region of the northern pike COI gene. Each qPCR reaction was run in triplicate and contained 8.0 µl of QuantaBio PerfeCTa qPCR ToughMix Low ROX (catalog number 97065-966), 500 nM of each primer, 300 nM of probe, 4.0 µl of gDNA, and 4.8 uL of nuclease-free water for a total reaction volume of 20 µl. qPCR amplification was carried out on the Thermofisher QuantStudio 5 qPCR instrument with the following thermal profile conditions: 1 cycle of initial denaturation for 5 minutes at 95 °C followed by 50 cycles of 15 seconds at 95 °C and 1 minute at 60 °C. A standard curve was tested in triplicate for each qPCR run. The targeted gene of interest, obtained from NBCI, was used to design a synthetic gBlock (TTCCCCTA ATGATTGG TGCCCCCG ACATGGCC TTCCCCCG CATAAATA ATATAAG CTTCTGAC TTCTCCCC CCCTCCTT TTTACTTC TCTTAGCC TCCTCAGG TGTTGAAG CTGGTGCT GGTACTGG CTGAACAG TTTATCC GCCTTTGG CCGG, from Integrated DNA Technologies) that contained the northern pike primers and probe. A 10-fold dilution was carried out on the northern pike gBlock, generating a 7-point standard curve ranging from 5,372,000 to 5.372 copies. Each qPCR reaction contained 8.0 µl of QuantaBio PerfeCTa qPCR ToughMix Low ROX (catalog number 97065-966), 500 nM of each primer, 300 nM of probe, 2.0 µl of northern pike gBlock, and 6.8 µl of nuclease-free water for a total reaction volume of 20 µl. qPCR was carried out on the Thermofisher QuantStudio 5 qPCR instrument with the following thermal profile conditions: 1 cycle of initial denaturation for 5 minutes at 95 °C followed by 50 cycles of 15 seconds at 95 °C and 1 minute at 60 °C. Analysis of qPCR data was carried out using the Thermofisher Connect™ cloud software using default settings. A linear regression was applied to the calibration curve which showed the relationship between the log10-transformed standard concentration and the number of PCR cycles at which the detection threshold was reached (Cq). The R2 intercept and slope of the linear regression were examined for goodness of fit, with an R2 value >0.99 and a reaction efficiency (E), or how close to a doubling of product was achieved with each PCR cycle, within 85%–110%. A 100% efficiency is a slope of ~3.3 cycles per 10-fold dilution. Sample quantities were extrapolated from the standard curve linear regression based on the Cq value at which the detection threshold was reached and back calculated to number of copies / 100 ml in the original sample volume. More complete qPCR methods are available from Jonah Ventures (2024b).
4. For fish metabarcoding samples processed by Jonah Ventures, sample barcodes were recorded and assigned a corresponding lysate tube. Sample filters, lysis buffer, and proteinase K were heated to 56 °C for one hour. Under a laminar flow hood, warm lysis buffers were pushed through the filter housing, and all supernatant was collected in the corresponding lysate tube. Tubes were placed in an incubator overnight at 56 °C. After incubation the lysate tubes were immediately processed. Genomic DNA from samples was extracted using the Omega Biotek Mag-Bind Blood & Tissue DNA HDQ 96 Kit (4x96 Preps) (Cat. No. / ID: M6399-01) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Whole (25 mm or 47 mm) filters were used for genomic DNA extraction. The extraction protocol was automated and completed using a Hamilton Microlab Starlet. Genomic DNA was eluted into 100 µl and frozen at -20 °C. Portions of hyper-variable regions of the mitochondrial 12S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene were PCR amplified from each genomic DNA sample using the MiFishUF (GTCGGTAA AACTCGTG CCAGC) and MiFishUR (CATAGTGG GGTATCTA ATCCCAGT TTG) primers with spacer regions (Miya et al., 2015). Both forward and reverse primers also contained a 5’ adapter sequence to allow for subsequent indexing and Illumina sequencing. PCR amplification was performed in replicates of six and all six replicates were not pooled and kept separate. Each 25 µl PCR reaction was mixed according to the Promega PCR Master Mix specifications (Promega catalog number M5133, Madison, Wisconsin) which included 12.5 µl Master Mix, 0.5 µM of each primer, 1.0 µl of gDNA, and 10.5 µl DNase/RNase-free water. DNA was PCR amplified using the following conditions: initial denaturation at 95 °C for 3 minutes followed by 45 cycles of 20 seconds at 98 °C, 30 seconds at 60 °C, and 30 seconds at 72 °C, and a final elongation at 72 °C for 10 minutes. To determine amplicon size and PCR efficiency, each reaction was visually inspected using a 2% agarose gel with 5 µl of each sample as input. Amplicons were then cleaned by incubating amplicons with Exo1/SAP for 30 minutes at 37 °C following by inactivation at 95 °C for 5 minutes and stored at -20 °C. A second round of PCR was performed to complete the sequencing library construct, appending the final Illumina sequencing adapters and integrating a sample-specific, dual index sequences (2 x 10 bp). The indexing PCR included Promega Master mix, 0.5 µM of each primer and 2 µl of template DNA (cleaned amplicon from the first PCR reaction) and consisted of an initial denaturation of 95 °C for 3 minutes followed by 8 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, 55 °C for 30 s and 72 °C for 30 s. Final indexed amplicons from each sample were cleaned and normalized using mag-bind normalization. A 15 µl aliquot of PCR amplicon was purified and normalized using Cytiva SpeedBead magnetic carboxylate modified particles (#45152105050250). Samples were then pooled together by adding 5 µl of each normalized sample to the pool. Sample library pools were sent for sequencing on an Illumina MiSeq (San Diego, California) at the Texas A&M Agrilife Genomics and Bioinformatics Sequencing Core facility (College Station, Texas) using the v2 500-cycle kit (catalog number MS-102-2003). Necessary quality control measures were performed at the sequencing center prior to sequencing. Raw sequence data were demultiplexed using pheniqs, version 2.1.0 (Galanti Shasha and Gunsalus, 2021), enforcing strict matching of sample barcode indices (i.e, no errors). Cutadapt, version 3.4 (Martin, 2011) was then used remove gene primers from the forward and reverse reads, discarding any read pairs where one or both primers (including a 6 bp, fully degenerate prefix) were not found at the expected location (5’) with an error rate < 0.15. Read pairs were then merged using vsearch, version 2.15.2 (Rognes et al., 2016), discarding resulting sequences with a length of < 130 bp, > 210 bp, or with a maximum expected error rate > 0.5 bp (see Edgar and Flyvbjerg, 2015). For each sample, reads were then clustered using the unoise3 denoising algorithm (Edgar, 2016) as implemented in vsearch, using an alpha value of 5 and discarding unique raw sequences observed less than 8 times. Counts of the resulting exact sequence variants (ESVs) were then compiled and putative chimeras were removed using the uchime3 algorithm, as implemented in vsearch. For each final ESV, a consensus taxonomy was assigned using a custom best-hits algorithm and a reference database consisting of publicly available sequences from GenBank (Benson et al., 2005) as well as Jonah Ventures voucher sequences records. Reference database searching used an exhaustive semi-global pairwise alignment with vsearch, and match quality was quantified using a custom, query-centric approach, where the % match ignores terminal gaps in the target sequence, but not the query sequence. The consensus taxonomy was then generated using either all 100% matching reference sequences or all reference sequences within 1% of the top match, accepting the reference taxonomy for any taxonomic level with > 90% agreement across the top hits. More complete fish metabarcoding methods are available from Jonah Ventures (2024a).
5. For qPCR samples processed by the Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Biomeme’s six-step protocol was followed, ensuring that all fluid in the syringe was expelled before moving on to the next step: (1.) Shake filter sample tube containing the filter sample vigorously for one minute to loosen DNA off the filter, then draw up the fluid in the filter sample tube with a syringe through the sample prep column and push the fluid back out for a total of 20 pumps; (2.) Draw up Biomeme protein wash through the syringe and push back out one time; (3.) Draw up Biomeme wash buffer through the syringe and push back out one time; (4.) Draw up Biomeme drying wash through the syringe and push back out one time; (5.) Draw air through the syringe and sample prep column by quickly and vigorously pumping back out for greater than twenty times, until the pump is warm to the touch and the sample prep column does not spray fluid droplets; (6.) Draw up Biomeme elution buffer all the way up through the syringe and pump back out for a total of five pumps. The purified DNA was then stored in the elution buffer until PCR. Biomeme’s recommended thermocycler protocol for this assay was followed: initial denaturation at 95 °C for 1 minute followed by 45 cycles of 95 °C denaturation for 1 second, and 20 seconds at annealing temperatures starting at 60 °C. The assay was conducted using an Applied Biosystems 7500 Real-Time PCR system. PCRs consisted of 20 μl including 10 μl of TaqMan Environmental Master Mix 2.0, 2.6 μl of sterile water, 2 μl of 10× TaqMan Exogenous IPC Reagents (VIC probe), 0.4 μl of Exogenous IPC DNA, 1 μl COI (20×) assay (primers at 18 μM, probe at 5 μM), and 4 μl of DNA extract. The PCR cycle conditions were as follows: 95 ºC for 10 min. followed by 50 cycles of 95 ºC for 15 s and 60 ºC for 1 min. Two non-template controls (NTC, 4 μl deionized water in place of template) and one internally-blocked control (IBC, 4 μl Exo IPC Block in place of template) were included on each 96-well assay plate. LinRegPCR v2017.0 (Ruijter et al., 2009; Tuomi et al., 2010) was used to correct ROX-normalized baselines and determine a common threshold fluorescence (0.231 relative fluorescence units). Each plate included synthetic standards which were used to adjust separately run plates using Factor q v2016.0 (Ruijter et al., 2015). Samples were run in triplicate during qPCR. Technical replicates with Cq < 40 and efficiencies 1.5–2 were judged positive for pike DNA.
6. We reshaped the qPCR and fish metabarcoding data into occurrence data suitable for publication to GBIF (https://www.gbif.org/) using a Quarto (https://quarto.org/) document (Bowser, 2025) that ran R, version 4.2.3 (R Core Team, 2023). We used the R packages Biostrings, version 2.66.0 (Pagès et al., 2022); h3jsr, version 1.3.1 (O’Brien, 2023); reshape2, version 1.4.4 (Wickham, 2007); and sf, version 1.0-12 (Pebesma, 2018; Pebesma and Bivand, 2023). We had used the uuid package, version 1.1-0 (Urbanek and Ts’o, 2022) to generate UUIDs before the document was rendered. We filtered out reads of Allosmerus elongatus, Anoplopoma fimbria, Anatidae, Bos, Bovidae, Catostomus, Engraulis mordax, Homo sapiens, Oreochromis, Scopelogadus bispinosus, Semotilus atromaculatus, Sus scrofa, Thunnus, and Triphoturus nigrescens, which we interpreted to be laboratory contaminants. Where Esox lucius, our primary target species, was not detected, we added inferred absences of this species for all sampling events.

書誌情報の引用

1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (2022) Alaska invasive species lake prioritization. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/41a6f3a3f35f4e0fae52f9c5a0c2fbd2/ https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/41a6f3a3f35f4e0fae52f9c5a0c2fbd2/
2. Benson DA, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J & Wheeler DL (2005) GenBank, Nucleic Acids Research, 33(suppl_1), pp. D34–D38. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gki063 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gki063
3. Bowser ML (2024) Quarto script to check and allocate eDNA samples collected as part of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge’s aquatic invasive fish surveys. Soldotna, Alaska: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/183416 https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/183416
4. Bowser ML (2025) Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 2024 invasive fish surveys data processing pipeline. Soldotna, Alaska: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/179304 https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/179304
5. Bowser ML & Davis N (2024) Site-specific protocol for aquatic invasive species management. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Soldotna, Alaska: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/171396 https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/171396
6. Dunker KJ, Bradley P, Brandt C, Cubbage T, Davis T, Erickson J, Jablonski J, Jacobson C, Kornblut D, Martin A, Massengill M, McKinley T, Oslund S, Russ O, Rutz D, Sepulveda A, Swenson N, Westley P, Wishnek B, Wizik A & Wooller M (2022) Technical guidance and management plan for invasive northern pike in Southcentral Alaska: 2022-2030. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Invasive Species Partnership, p. 233. https://alaskainvasives.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Technical-Guidance-and-Management-Plan-for-Invasive-Northern-Pike-in-Southcentral-Alaska.pdf https://alaskainvasives.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Technical-Guidance-and-Management-Plan-for-Invasive-Northern-Pike-in-Southcentral-Alaska.pdf
7. Dunker KJ, Sepulveda AJ, Massengill RL, Olsen JB, Russ OL, Wenburg JK & Antonovich A (2016) Potential of environmental DNA to evaluate northern pike (Esox lucius) eradication efforts: An experimental test and case study, PLOS ONE, 11(9), p. e0162277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162277 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162277
8. Edgar RC (2016) UNOISE2: Improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing, bioRxiv, p. 081257. https://doi.org/10.1101/081257 https://doi.org/10.1101/081257
9. Edgar RC & Flyvbjerg H (2015) Error filtering, pair assembly and error correction for next-generation sequencing reads, Bioinformatics, 31(21), pp. 3476–3482. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv401 https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv401
10. Galanti L, Shasha D & Gunsalus KC (2021) Pheniqs 2.0: Accurate, high-performance Bayesian decoding and confidence estimation for combinatorial barcode indexing, BMC Bioinformatics, 22(1), p. 359. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-021-04267-5 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-021-04267-5
11. Jonah Ventures (2022) JonahWater environmental DNA how to sample. Boulder, Colorado: Jonah Ventures. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2jb9IVVB68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2jb9IVVB68
12. Jonah Ventures (2024a) Fish metabarcoding data for BatchId JVB3615. Boulder, Colorado: Jonah Ventures. https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/178920 https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/178920
13. Jonah Ventures (2024b) qPCR data for BatchId JVB3615. Boulder, Colorado: Jonah Ventures. https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/179044 https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/179044
14. Kenai National Wildlife Refuge & US Fish & Wildlife Service, Alaska Regional Office, Division of Conservation Planning & Policy (2010) Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/149784 https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/149784
15. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA & Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one., Ecology, 83(8), pp. 2248–2255. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2248:ESORWD]2.0.CO;2 https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2248:ESORWD]2.0.CO;2
16. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL & Hines JE (2006) Occupancy Estimation and Modeling. New York: Elsevier.
17. Martin M (2011) Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads, EMBnet.journal, 17(1), pp. 10–12. https://doi.org/10.14806/ej.17.1.200 https://doi.org/10.14806/ej.17.1.200
18. Miya M, Sato Y, Fukunaga T, Sado T, Poulsen JY, Sato K, Minamoto T, Yamamoto S, Yamanaka H, Araki H, Kondoh M & Iwasaki W (2015) MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: Detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species, Royal Society Open Science, 2(7), p. 150088. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150088 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150088
19. O’Brien L (2023) h3jsr: Access uber’s H3 library. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=h3jsr. Pagès H, Aboyoun P, Gentleman R & DebRoy S (2022) Biostrings: Efficient manipulation of biological strings. https://bioconductor.org/packages/Biostrings https://bioconductor.org/packages/Biostrings
20. Pebesma E (2018) Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data, The R Journal, 10(1), pp. 439–446. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-009 https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-009
21. Pebesma E & Bivand R (2023) Spatial data science: With applications in R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, p. 352. https://r-spatial.org/book/ https://r-spatial.org/book/
22. R Core Team (2023) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ https://www.R-project.org/
23. R Core Team (2024) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ https://www.R-project.org/
24. Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C & Mahé F (2016) VSEARCH: A versatile open source tool for metagenomics, PeerJ, 4, p. e2584. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2584 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2584
25. Ruijter JM, Ramakers C, Hoogaars WMH, Karlen Y, Bakker O, Hoff MJB van den & Moorman AFM (2009) Amplification efficiency: Linking baseline and bias in the analysis of quantitative PCR data, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(6), pp. e45–e45. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp045 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp045
26. Ruijter JM, Ruiz Villalba A, Hellemans J, Untergasser A & Hoff MJB van den (2015) Removal of between-run variation in a multi-plate qPCR experiment, Biomolecular Detection and Quantification, 5, pp. 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bdq.2015.07.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bdq.2015.07.001
27. Smith-Root, Inc (2024) 11569.04 eDNA sampler instruction manual. Vancouver, Washington: Smith-Root, Inc. https://www.smith-root.com/images/smith-root/downloads/11569.04_eDNA_Sampler_Instruction_Manual_.pdf https://www.smith-root.com/images/smith-root/downloads/11569.04_eDNA_Sampler_Instruction_Manual_.pdf
28. Tuomi JM, Voorbraak F, Jones DL & Ruijter JM (2010) Bias in the Cq value observed with hydrolysis probe based quantitative PCR can be corrected with the estimated PCR efficiency value, The ongoing Evolution of qPCR, 50(4), pp. 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2010.02.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2010.02.003
29. Urbanek S & Ts’o T (2022) uuid: Tools for generating and handling of UUIDs. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=uuid https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=uuid
30. Wickham H (2007) Reshaping data with the reshape package, Journal of Statistical Software, 21(12), pp. 1–20. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v21/i12/ http://www.jstatsoft.org/v21/i12/

追加のメタデータ