4 ways eDNA reduces invasive species risk

Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) are a major nature-related risk facing businesses and ecosystems today.

They have contributed to 57% of extinctions world-wide. Only habit destruction and over-exploitation have been more damaging.

Meanwhile, they cost global economies an eye-watering $423 billion per year. Or about 15% of the WEF’s predicted annual cost of the Green Transition.  

And this risk is growing.

According to a 2020 report by IPBES, the rate of new invasive species introductions is increasing rapidly. So are the costs. The economic impact of INNS has increased 400% per decade since 1970.  

Yet investment in mitigating technology has not grown proportionately to the problem. Many organizations facing exponential risks still rely on under-resourced teams of ecologists using traditional methods.  

The expertise of these teams is irreplaceable, but it needs bolstering.

For the global shipping industry alone, the estimated cost of INNS’s is $120 billion annually.  That’s half of their record 2021 profits. And, if mitigated, more than enough to turn 2023’s loss into a significant profit.  

Dual cost centres of INNS

Nature-related costs impact shipping from two directions: regulatory and efficiency.

Invasive species impact efficiency.

Biofouling is the accumulation of organisms like plants, algae, microorganisms, and animals on submerged surfaces and is one of the main vectors for bioinvasions.

It’s also terrible for fuel consumption.  

The International Maritime Organization estimates that biofouling, exacerbated by invasive species, can increase fuel consumption by up to 40%, costing the industry an estimated $30 billion per year.

Maintenance and cleaning costs increase too. For large vessels, this can exceed $500,000 per day in dry docking, not including lost operational time.

Ports are at risk too. Damage to port infrastructure from invasive species, including the zebra mussel, runs into the tens of billions.  

Reducing these risks by more effectively managing invasive species would result in vast savings for the shipping industry and port authorities.  

Regulations and INNS

The impact of environmental regulations on industry is predicted to increase as nature-related obligations catch up with climate ones.

Many forward-looking companies are voluntarily ramping up biodiversity monitoring and publishing biodiversity strategies that include net-positive targets. This may be in anticipation of the expected windfall for early movers.

However, not all regulations concerning invasive species are voluntary.  

The International Maritime Organization's Ballast Water Management Convention, which entered into force in 2017, requires ships to manage their ballast water to prevent the spread of invasive species. Non-compliance can result in severe penalties, including fines and potential detentions.

The European Union's Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires member states to implement measures to achieve "Good Environmental Status" in their marine waters, including the management of non-indigenous species.

Meanwhile, in North America, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Vessel General Permit (VGP) and National Invasive Species (NISA) regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels and preventing the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species respectively.

The cost of breaching these regulations can be significant.

INNS detection challenges

Given the sums involved, it would be a reasonable assumption that robust monitoring systems for invasive species are already in place. However, limitations associated with traditional ecological monitoring mean even well-designed initiatives can fall short.

These limitations include:

• Visual Inspections: While common, these can miss small organisms or early-stage invasions and are time-consuming and affected by factors like water turbidity.

• Diving Surveys: More detailed but expensive, time-consuming, and potentially dangerous around infrastructure.

• Trapping and Netting: Effective for certain species but may miss others. They're also labor-intensive and can potentially harm non-target species.

• Plankton Sampling: Useful for detecting some larval stages but requires specialized equipment and expertise.

These methods often detect invasive species only after they've become well-established, at which point management becomes more difficult and expensive.  

4 ways eDNA reduces invasive risk

Environmental DNA, or eDNA, refers to genetic material that organisms leave behind in their environment. In marine and freshwater environments, eDNA can be captured by pushing water through a NatureMetrics filter membrane and sending the eDNA sample for analysis at the NatureMetrics lab. eDNA can also be captured from soil and air.

It can reduce economic and regulatory risk associated with invasive species by positively complimenting traditional monitoring.  

1. Early Detection

eDNA can identify species at incredibly low densities, often before visual detection. A study in European ports found that eDNA metabarcoding detected 3.5 times more non-indigenous species than conventional survey methods [Zaiko et al., Scientific Reports, 2020].  

This early detection capability is crucial for preventing the establishment of invasive species, as management is far more effective and less costly in the early stages of an invasion.

Larson et al (2020), writing in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, concluded that managers should “anticipate an escalation in the surveillance of invasive species through techniques using eDNA, given its sensitivity to species presence at low abundances, its ease of use in collecting field samples, and its applicability across a breadth of ecosystem types”.

The North American Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, a federal body representing agencies from across North America, is already using eDNA for early detection and rapid response to invasive species.  

2. Comprehensive Coverage and scalability

A single water sample can provide information on multiple species simultaneously. This means you can screen for a wide range of potential invaders in one go, including species we might not have thought to look for. eDNA methods can also be easily scaled up to cover large areas or multiple locations.

EDF, an energy company, identified 70% more fish species using eDNA compared to traditional trawling, including marine mammals and seabirds.  This included 59 fish species within the turbine array, which was inaccessible to trawling.

Despite the increased data haul, EDF reported a 40% drop in vessel time and a 66% drop in conventional personnel resources.  Hundreds of companies would benefit from similar improvements.

WWF uncovered an additional 675 species whilst surveying for river dolphins. And the University of Sussex and NIRAS, an engineering consultancy, both discovered significantly more species using eDNA when they tested this against traditional methods.

The benefits apply to terrestrial settings too. Jacobs, an engineering consultancy, found 10x more soil faunal species using eDNA compared to conventional methods when using NatureMetrics’ soil sampling kits.  

3. Cost-Effective

eDNA monitoring can be more cost-effective than traditional methods in the long run, especially when you factor in the potential savings from early detection and management of invasive species.

Methods like trapping, electrofishing, and visual surveying require significant man-hours that are only marginally affected by economies of scale.  By contrast, large areas can be surveyed using eDNA in a fraction of the time, reducing labour costs.

NatureMetrics worked with the University of Sussex to monitor the restoration success of a kelp forest ecosystem following a ban on trawling. They deployed both eDNA and video surveys. On average, eDNA detected a species every 1.25 minutes against 8 hours per species for video surveying.

This time saving has a direct impact on business costs and operational efficiency.

There is academic backing for this too.

Sternhagen et al (2024) tested the effectiveness of eDNA surveying vs. trapping in the US for monitoring snapping turtles. They found eDNA to be 18.7% cheaper and the detection rate 5.6x higher. Herder et al (2014), testing in Holland in an aquatic setting, found eDNA monitoring to be at least one and a half times more cost-effective than electrofishing.

This is corroborated in a meta-analysis of 535 papers by Fadiajevaite et al (2021), who concluded “eDNA methods are cheaper, more sensitive, and detect more species than traditional methods”.

4. Reduce health and safety concerns

Workplace injury is a major business risk. In the UK, the estimated annual costs of workplace injury and new cases of work-related ill health have reached £20.7 billion. In the US, including indirect costs such as operational delays, it’s $170 billion.  

eDNA surveys can reduce employee risk. This is partly because eDNA surveying is so much quicker than traditional monitoring. Biggs et al. (2015) showed that eDNA surveys for great crested newts were 10 times faster than traditional methods.  

Other reasons include:

• Simplified Sampling: eDNA requires minimal training for sample collection, reducing the need for deploying specialized personnel, who may be unfamiliar with the terrain, in dangerous areas.  

• Remote Sampling: In some cases, eDNA samples can be collected using automated samplers or drones, eliminating human presence in high-risk areas entirely. This is particularly valuable in areas with unstable terrain or potential chemical hazards. The NM-DOT autosampler is an example of this.

• Reduced Wildlife Encounters: Traditional surveys often require direct interaction with wildlife, risking bites, stings, or zoonotic disease transmission. eDNA eliminates this risk by detecting species presence without direct contact.  

• Night Work Reduction: Many traditional surveys require nighttime fieldwork to detect invertebrates and nocturnal species. This carries additional risks. eDNA samples are typically collected during daylight hours, reducing the need for night work and associated accidents.

INNS as a profit centre?

The threat of invasive species is growing. The costs involved are monumental, exceeding the global profits of entire industries.  Reducing the harm caused by invasive species could revolutionise the financial prospects of companies and industries, whilst protecting local ecology.

eDNA is a powerful tool for enabling this, with clear potential benefits, including:

• Reduced fuel costs through early detection of hull fouling

• Avoided fines and delays through improved regulatory compliance

• Reduced dry-docking frequency and duration

• Protection of critical port and energy infrastructure

• Contribution to global efforts to preserve marine biodiversity and ecosystem functions

To date, NatureMetrics has detected 107 different types of invasive species in 35 different countries. We've identified 14% of all invasive vertebrates listed in the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS) and 13% of all invasive bivalves.  

Our technology can potentially identify 76% of GRIIS-listed invasive vertebrates and 62% of invasive bivalves, making it a powerful tool in the fight against biological invasions.

Reach out to our team at sales@naturemetrics.co.uk or Contact us via naturemetrics.com.

‍