The status of COI and 12S rRNA DNA barcode reference libraries for freshwater fish in South Africa: Implications for future eDNA projects

References

• Adams J, Whitfield A, Van Niekerk L. 2020. A socio-ecological systems approach towards future research for the restoration, conservation and management of southern African estuaries. African Journal of Aquatic Science 45: 231–241. https://doi.org/10.2989/16085914.2020.1751980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed S, Ibrahim M, Nantasenamat C, Nisar MF, Malik AA, Waheed R, Ahmed MZ, Ojha SC, Alam MK. 2022. Pragmatic applications and universality of DNA barcoding for substantial organisms at species level: a review to explore a way forward. BioMed Research International 2022: 1846485. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1846485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alam MJ, Kim N-K, Andriyono S, Choi H-k, Lee J-H, Kim H-W. 2020. Assessment of fish biodiversity in four Korean rivers using environmental DNA metabarcoding. PeerJ 8: e9508. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antognazza CM, Britton RJ, Read DS, Goodall T, Mantzouratou A, De Santis V, Davies P, Aprahamian M, Franklin E, Hardouin EA, Andreou D. 2021. Application of eDNA metabarcoding in a fragmented lowland river: spatial and methodological comparison of fish species composition. Environmental DNA 3: 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.136.
   Google Scholar
• Belle CC, Stoeckle BC, Geist J. 2019. Taxonomic and geographical representation of freshwater environmental DNA research in aquatic conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 29: 1996–2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benson DA, Cavanaugh M, Clark K, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Sayers EW. 2012. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Research 41: D36–D42. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger CS, Hernandez C, Laporte M, Côté G, Paradis Y, Kameni T DW, Normandeau E, Bernatchez L. 2020. Fine-scale environmental heterogeneity shapes fluvial fish communities as revealed by eDNA metabarcoding. Environmental DNA 2: 647–666. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.129.
   Google Scholar
• Bucklin A, Steinke D, Blanco-Bercial L. 2011. DNA barcoding of marine metazoa. Annual Review of Marine Science 3: 471–508. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-120308-080950.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bylemans J, Furlan EM, Pearce L, Daly T, Gleeson DM. 2016. Improving the containment of a freshwater invader using environmental DNA (eDNA) based monitoring. Biological Invasions 18: 3081–3089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1203-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bylemans J, Gleeson DM, Hardy CM, Furlan E. 2018. Toward an ecoregion scale evaluation of eDNA metabarcoding primers: a case study for the freshwater fish biodiversity of the Murray-Darling Basin (Australia). Ecology and Evolution 8: 8697–8712. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakona A, Jordaan MS, Raimondo DC, Bills RI, Skelton PH, van der Colff D. 2022. Diversity, distribution and extinction risk of native freshwater fishes of South Africa. Journal of Fish Biology 100: 1044–1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.15011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cilleros K, Valentini A, Allard L, Dejean T, Etienne R, Grenouillet G, Iribar A, Taberlet P, Vigouroux R, Brosse S. 2019. Unlocking biodiversity and conservation studies in high-diversity environments using environmental DNA (eDNA): a test with Guianese freshwater fishes. Molecular Ecology Resources 19: 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clusa L, García Vázquez E. 2018. A simple, rapid method for detecting seven common invasive fish species in Europe from environmental DNA. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 28: 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2890.
   Web of Science ®Google 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 in Ecology and Evolution 10: 1985–2001. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Silva JM, Willows-Munro S. 2016. A review of over a decade of DNA barcoding in South Africa: a faunal perspective. African Zoology 51: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15627020.2016.1151377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dallas H, Shelton J, Sutton T, Tri Cuptura D, Kajee M, Job N. 2022. The Freshwater Biodiversity Information System (FBIS) – mobilising data for evaluating long-term change in South African rivers. African Journal of Aquatic Science 47: 291–306. https://doi.org/10.2989/16085914.2021.1982672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dallas HF, Rivers-Moore N. 2014. Ecological consequences of global climate change for freshwater ecosystems in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 110: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2014/20130274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deagle BE, Jarman SN, Coissac E, Pompanon F, Taberlet P. 2014. DNA metabarcoding and the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I marker: not a perfect match. Biology Letters 10: 20140562. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai M, Hanzen C, Downs CT, O’Brien GC. 2021. Environmental drivers of ichthyofauna community composition of the river ecosystems draining the Lake St. Lucia basin, South Africa. Hydrobiologia 848: 3539–3554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-021-04609-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duarte S, Vieira PE, Costa FO. 2020. Assessment of species gaps in DNA barcode libraries of non-indigenous species (NIS) occurring in European coastal regions. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 4: e55162. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.4.55162.
   Google Scholar
• Dubreuil T, Baudry T, Mauvisseau Q, Arqué A, Courty C, Delaunay C, Sweet M, Grandjean F. 2022. The development of early monitoring tools to detect aquatic invasive species: eDNA assay development and the case of the armored catfish Hypostomus robinii. Environmental DNA 4: 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.260.
   Google Scholar
• Dudgeon D. 2010. Prospects for sustaining freshwater biodiversity in the 21st century: linking ecosystem structure and function. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2: 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudgeon D. 2019. Multiple threats imperil freshwater biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Current Biology 29: R960–R967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.08.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z-I, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elbrecht V, Vamos EE, Meissner K, Aroviita J, Leese F. 2017. Assessing strengths and weaknesses of DNA metabarcodingbased macroinvertebrate identification for routine stream monitoring. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8: 1265–1275. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12789.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellender B, Weyl O. 2014. A review of current knowledge, risk and ecological impacts associated with non-native freshwater fish introductions in South Africa. Aquatic Invasions 9: 117–132. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2014.9.2.01.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellender BR, Wasserman RJ, Chakona A, Skelton PH, Weyl OLF. 2017. A review of the biology and status of Cape Fold Ecoregion freshwater fishes. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 27: 867–879. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsaied H, Soliman T, Abdelmageed AA, Abu-Taleb HT. 2021. Applications and challenges of DNA barcoding and metabarcoding in African fisheries. The Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research 47: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2021.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans NT, Olds BP, Renshaw MA, Turner CR, Li Y, Jerde CL, Mahon AR, Pfrender ME, Lamberti GA, Lodge DM. 2016. Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources 16: 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans W, Downs CT, Burnett MJ, O’Brien GC. 2022. Assessing fish community response to water quality and habitat stressors in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 47: 47–65. https://doi.org/10.2989/16085914.2021.1952158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ficetola GF, 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. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-11-434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fierro P, Valdovinos C, Arismendi I, Díaz G, Ruiz De Gamboa M, Arriagada L. 2019. Assessment of anthropogenic threats to Chilean Mediterranean freshwater ecosystems: literature review and expert opinions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 77: 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.02.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froese R, Pauly D. 2023. FishBase. World Wide Web Electronic Publication. Available at http://www.fishbase.org/Search.php. [Accessed 1 February 2023].
   Google Scholar
• Fujii K, Doi H, Matsuoka S, Nagano M, Sato H, Yamanaka H. 2019. Environmental DNA metabarcoding for fish community analysis in backwater lakes: a comparison of capture methods. PLoS ONE 14: e0210357. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García de Amézaga Quintanilla L. 2021. Increasing reference databases for DNA barcoding and metabarcoding of marine fish. Bachelor’s thesis, Universidad Católica de Valencia, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• García-Machado E, Laporte M, Normandeau E, Hernández C, Côté G, Paradis Y, Mingelbier M, Bernatchez L. 2022. Fish community shifts along a strong fluvial environmental gradient revealed by eDNA metabarcoding. Environmental DNA 4: 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.221.
   Google Scholar
• GenBank, NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information). Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [Accessed 1 February 2023].
   Google Scholar
• Gillet B, Cottet M, Destanque T, Kue K, Descloux S, Chanudet V, Hughes S. 2018. Direct fishing and eDNA metabarcoding for biomonitoring during a 3-year survey significantly improves number of fish detected around a South East Asian reservoir. PLoS One 13: e0208592. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Govender IH, Sahlin U, O’Brien GC. 2022. Bayesian network applications for sustainable holistic water resources management: modeling opportunities for South Africa. Risk Analysis 42: 1346–1364. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallam J, Clare EL, Jones JI, Day JJ. 2021. Biodiversity assessment across a dynamic riverine system: a comparison of eDNA metabarcoding versus traditional fish surveying methods. Environmental DNA 3: 1247–1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.241.
   Google Scholar
• Hänfling B, Lawson Handley L, Read DS, Hahn C, Li J, Nichols P, Blackman RC, Oliver A, Winfield IJ. 2016. Environmental DNA metabarcoding of lake fish communities reflects long-term data from established survey methods. Molecular Ecology 25: 3101–3119. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, Dewaard JR. 2003. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 270: 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heywood V. 2011. Monitoring of areas and species/populations to assess effectiveness of conservation/management actions. In: Hunter D, Heywood V (eds), Crop wild relatives: a manual of in situ conservation.: London: Earthscan. pp 295–313.
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2017.8.1.09.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeunen G-J, Lipinskaya T, Gajduchenko H, Golovenchik V, Moroz M, Rizevsky V, Semenchenko V, Gemmell NJ. 2022. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding surveys show evidence of non-indigenous freshwater species invasion to new parts of Eastern Europe. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 6: e68575. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.6.e68575.
   Google Scholar
• Jo T, Ikeda S, Fukuoka A, Inagawa T, Okitsu J, Katano I, Doi H, Nakai K, Ichiyanagi H, Minamoto T. 2021. Utility of environmental DNA analysis for effective monitoring of invasive fish species in reservoirs. Ecosphere 12: e03643. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones L, Twyford AD, Ford CR, Rich TCG, Davies H, Forrest LL, Hart ML, McHaffie H, Brown MR, Hollingsworth PM, Vere N. 2021. Barcode UK: a complete DNA barcoding resource for the flowering plants and conifers of the United Kingdom. Molecular Ecology Resources 21: 2050–2062. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keck F, Blackman RC, Bossart R, Brantschen J, Couton M, Hürlemann S, Kirschner D, Locher N, Zhang H, Altermatt F. 2022. Meta-analysis shows both congruence and complementarity of DNA and eDNA metabarcoding to traditional methods for biological community assessment. Molecular Ecology 31: 1820–1835. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly RP, Port JA, Yamahara KM, Crowder LB. 2014. Using Environmental DNA to census marine fishes in a large mesocosm. PLoS One 9: e86175. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keskin E. 2014. Detection of invasive freshwater fish species using environmental DNA survey. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 56: 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2014.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keskin E, Unal EM, Atar HH. 2016. Detection of rare and invasive freshwater fish species using eDNA pyrosequencing: Lake Iznik ichthyofauna revised. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 67: 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2016.05.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecaudey LA, Schletterer M, Kuzovlev VV, Hahn C, Weiss SJ. 2019. Fish diversity assessment in the headwaters of the Volga River using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 29: 1785–1800. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leese F, Bouchez A, Abarenkov K, Altermatt F, Borja Á, Bruce K, Ekrem T, Čiampor F, Čiamporová-Zaťovičová Z, Costa FO, et al. 2018. Why we need sustainable networks bridging countries, disciplines, cultures and generations for aquatic biomonitoring 2.0: a perspective derived from the DNAqua-net cost action. Next Generation Biomonitoring: Part 1 58: 63–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2018.01.001.
   Google Scholar
• Leray M, Knowlton N, Ho S-L, Nguyen BN, Machida RJ. 2019. GenBank is a reliable resource for 21st century biodiversity research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 22651–22656. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911714116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li F, Zhang Y, Altermatt F, Zhang X, Cai Y, Yang Z. 2022. Gap analysis for DNA-based biomonitoring of aquatic ecosystems in China. Ecological Indicators 137: 108732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108732.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mächler E, Little CJ, Wüthrich R, Alther R, Fronhofer EA, Gounand I, Harvey E, Hürlemann S, Walser JC, Altermatt F. 2019. Assessing different components of diversity across a river network using eDNA. Environmental DNA 1: 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.33.
   Google Scholar
• Meiklejohn KA, Damaso N, Robertson JM. 2019. Assessment of BOLD and GenBank–Their accuracy and reliability for the identification of biological materials. PLoS One 14: e0217084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milan DT, Mendes IS, Damasceno JS, Teixeira DF, Sales NG, Carvalho DC. 2020. New 12S metabarcoding primers for enhanced Neotropical freshwater fish biodiversity assessment. Scientific Reports 10: 17966. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74902-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minett JF, Garcia De Leaniz C, Brickle P, Consuegra S. 2021. A new high-resolution melt curve eDNA assay to monitor the simultaneous presence of invasive brown trout (Salmo trutta) and endangered galaxiids. Environmental DNA 3: 561–572. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.151.
   Google Scholar
• Miya M, Sato Y, Fukunaga T, Sado T, Poulsen JY, Sato K, Minamoto T, Yamamoto S, Yamanaka H, Araki H, et al. 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: 150088. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150088.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble T, Robson H, Saunders R, Jerry D. 2015. The utility of eDNA as a tilapia surveillance tool. Report No. 1.W.1. Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Myers G. 1938. Fresh-water fishes and West Indian zoogeography. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution 3465: 339–364.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien GC, Ross M, Hanzen C, Dlamini V, Petersen R, Diedericks GJ, Burnett MJ. 2019. River connectivity and fish migration considerations in the management of multiple stressors in South Africa. Marine and Freshwater Research 70: 1254–1264. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF19183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polanco F A, Richards E, Flück B, Valentini A, Altermatt F, Brosse S, Walser JC, Eme D, Marques V, Manel S, et al. 2021. Comparing the performance of 12s mitochondrial primers for fish environmental DNA across ecosystems. Environmental DNA 3: 1113–1127. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.232.
   Google Scholar
• Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN. 2007. BOLD: the barcode of life data system (http://www.barcodinglife.org). Molecular Ecology Notes 7: 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rees HC, Gough KC, Middleditch DJ, Patmore JR, Maddison BC. 2015. Applications and limitations of measuring environmental DNA as indicators of the presence of aquatic animals. Journal of Applied Ecology 52: 827–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid AJ, Carlson AK, Creed IF, Eliason EJ, Gell PA, Johnson PTJ, Kidd KA, Maccormack TJ, Olden JD, Ormerod SJ, et al. 2019. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biological Reviews 94: 849–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revenga C, Campbell I, Abell R, De Villiers P, Bryer M. 2005. Prospects for monitoring freshwater ecosystems towards the 2010 targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360: 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riaz T, Shehzad W, Viari A, Pompanon F, Taberlet P, Coissac E. 2011. ecoPrimers: inference of new DNA barcode markers from whole genome sequence analysis. Nucleic Acids Research 39: e145. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riddell ES, Govender D, Botha J, Sithole H, Petersen RM, Shikwambana P. 2019. Pollution impacts on the aquatic ecosystems of the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Scientific African 6: e00195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2019.e00195.
   Google Scholar
• Rimet F, Aylagas E, Borja A, Bouchez A, Canino A, Chauvin C, Chonova T, Ciampor F Jr, Costa FO, Ferrari BJ et al. 2021. Metadata standards and practical guidelines for specimen and DNA curation when building barcode reference libraries for aquatic life. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 5: e58056. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.5.58056.
   Google Scholar
• Sales NG, Wangensteen OS, Carvalho DC, Deiner K, Præbel K, Coscia I, McDevitt AD, Mariani S. 2021. Space-time dynamics in monitoring neotropical fish communities using eDNA metabarcoding. Science of the Total Environment 754: 142096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shu L, Ludwig A, Peng Z. 2020. Standards for methods utilizing environmental DNA for detection of fish species. Genes 11: 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11030296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shu L, Ludwig A, Peng Z. 2021. Environmental DNA metabarcoding primers for freshwater fish detection and quantification: in silico and in tanks. Ecology and Evolution 11: 8281–8294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skelton PH. 2001. A complete guide to the freshwater fishes of Southern Africa. Cape Town, South Africa: Struik.
   Google Scholar
• Singh S, Groeneveld J, Huggett J, Naidoo D, Cedras R, Willows-Munro S. 2021. Metabarcoding of marine zooplankton in South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 43: 147–159. https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2021.1919759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taberlet P, Coissac E, Hajibabaei M, Rieseberg LH. 2012. Environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology 21: 1789–1793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05542.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takahara T, Minamoto T, Doi H. 2013. Using environmental DNA to estimate the distribution of an invasive fish species in ponds. PLoS ONE 8: e56584. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen PF, Kielgast J, Iversen LL, Wiuf C, Rasmussen M, Gilbert MTP, Orlando L, Willerslev E. 2012. Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology 21: 2565–2573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05418.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen PF, Willerslev E. 2015. Environmental DNA–an emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biological Conservation 183: 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobe SS, Kitchener A, Linacre A. 2009. Cytochrome b or cytochrome c oxidase subunit I for mammalian species identification — an answer to the debate. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 2: 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2009.08.053.
   Google Scholar
• Tsoupas A, Papavasileiou S, Minoudi S, Gkagkavouzis K, Petriki O, Bobori D, Sapounidis A, Koutrakis E, Leonardos I, Karaiskou N, Triantafyllidis A. 2022. DNA barcoding identification of Greek freshwater fishes. PLoS ONE 17: e0263118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentini A, Taberlet P, Miaud C, Civade R, Herder J, Thomsen PF, Bellemain E, Besnard A, Coissac E, Boyer F, Gaboriaud C. 2016. Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology 25: 929–942. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Walt KA, Mäkinen T, Swartz ER, Weyl OLF. 2017. DNA barcoding of South Africa’s ornamental freshwater fish–are the names reliable? African Journal of Aquatic Science 42:155–160. https://doi.org/10.2989/16085914.2017.1343178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasselon V, Rimet F, Tapolczai K, Bouchez A. 2017. Assessing ecological status with diatoms DNA metabarcoding: scaling-up on a WFD monitoring network (Mayotte island, France). Ecological Indicators 82: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weigand H, Beermann AJ, Čiampor F, Costa FO, Csabai Z, Duarte S, Geiger MF, Grabowski M, Rimet F, Rulik B. 2019. DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: gap-analysis and recommendations for future work. Science of the Total Environment 678: 499–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weyl OLF, Ellender BR, Wassermann RJ, Truter M, Dalu T, Zengeya TA, Smit NJ. 2020. Alien freshwater fauna in South Africa. In: van Wilgen B, Measey J, Richardson D, Wilson J, Zengeya T, Smit NJ (eds) Biological invasions in South Africa. Invading Nature-Springer Series in Invasion Ecology, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_6.
   Google Scholar
• Xiong F, Shu L, Zeng H, Gan X, He S, Peng Z. 2022. Methodology for fish biodiversity monitoring with environmental DNA metabarcoding: the primers, databases and bioinformatic pipelines. Water Biology and Security 1: 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watbs.2022.100007.
   Google Scholar
• Yamamoto S, Masuda R, Sato Y, Sado T, Araki H, Kondoh M, Minamoto T, Miya M. 2017. Environmental DNA metabarcoding reveals local fish communities in a species-rich coastal sea. Scientific Reports 7: 40368. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang S, Zhao J, Yao M. 2020. A comprehensive and comparative evaluation of primers for metabarcoding eDNA from fish. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 11: 1609–1625. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar