Fig 1.
Graphical representation of filtration volume, filtration type and extraction kit experiments.
Table 1.
Linear models analysing effects of filtration volume, filtration type and extraction kit in correlation to water body type on successful eDNA extraction and amplification for each of the experimental category separately, including comparison between models with and without an interaction term between the tested categories and water bodies.
Table 2.
Comparison of water volumes by eDNA capture and amplification efficiencies for volume experiment using glass fibre filter (0.6 μm) and Qiagen extraction kit for each individual response, DNA capture yield (ng/ μL), PCR (ng/ μL) and qPCR (Cq).
Table 3.
Comparison of filtration methods for eDNA capture and amplification efficiencies for filtration type experiment for 100 mL water filtered using Qiagen extraction kit for each individual response DNA capture yield (ng/ μL), PCR (ng/ μL) and qPCR (Cq).
Fig 2.
eDNA capture yield (ng/ μL) and amplification efficiencies by filtration volume experiment.
Fig 3.
Filtration type experiment evaluating eDNA capture yield (ng/μL) and amplification efficiencies.
Fig 4.
eDNA capture yield (ng/ μL) and amplification efficiencies by extraction kit comparison.
Table 4.
Comparison of extraction kits for eDNA capture and amplification efficiencies for extraction kit experiment with 250 ml of water filtered using a glass fibre filter (0.6 μm) for each individual response DNA capture yield (ng/ μL), PCR (ng/ μL) and qPCR (Cq).
Fig 5.
Graphical representation of the most successful sampling method for each specific water body: River Tawe, Cardiff Bay lake and Swansea University pond indicating the most common fish species identified.