Figure Legend
Figure 1. Experimental design for testing passive eDNA collection with
nine different membrane materials in a controlled mesocosm setting with
varying soak times.
Figure 2. Mean Cq values from quantitative PCR by membrane material
compared to conventional filtration of 1L eDNA samples. Note that both
cotton and hemp were place inside nylon bags. Lower Cq values indicate
higher DNA yield and different letters indicate statistical significance
(α=0.05).
Figure 3. Mean Cq values from quantitative PCR by submersion time for
each membrane material. Open
circles represent data for nylon bags (used with both cotton and hemp)
which were sampled only at the end of the experiment. A smoothing spline
(dashed line) is used to visualize possible time trends and could not be
fitted for electrospun nanofibers due to the small sample size.
Figure 4. The number of fish species detected by membrane material
compared to conventional filtration of 1L eDNA samples. Note that both
cotton and hemp were place inside nylon bags. Different letters indicate
statistical significance (α=0.05).
Figure 5. The number of fish species detected by submersion time and
membrane material. Open circles represent data for nylon bags (used with
both cotton and hemp) which were sampled only at the end of the
experiment. A smoothing spline (dashed line) is used to visualize
possible time trends and could not be fitted for electrospun nanofibers
due to the small sample size.
Figure 6. Scanning electron microscopy images of materials at 5000 x
magnification after submersion in tank water where dashed circles
identify biological matter. All scale bars are 10 µm.
Table 1. Materials trialled for passive eDNA collection accompanied by
scanning electron microscopy pictures of each material at 10,000 x
(Cellulose) and 100 x (all other materials) magnification, inlaid with
pictures of the materials prior to deployment.