Environmental DNA
and Karst Systems: Advancing Groundwater Tracing, Aquifer Connectivity, and
Ecosystem Research – Mike Buchanan 2025
Abstract
Introduction
Karst systems represent some of the most intricate and least
accessible carbonate landscapes, shaped by the dissolution of soluble rocks such as
limestone and dolomite. They host diverse ecosystems and provide critical
groundwater resources for human consumption, agriculture and biodiversity
conservation. Understanding groundwater flow, aquifer connectivity, and
ecosystem dynamics in karst systems is vital, yet traditional methodologies,
including dye tracing and direct biological surveys, remain constrained by
scale, invasiveness, and limited temporal coverage (Goldscheider & Drew,
2007).
Environmental DNA (eDNA) has emerged as a promising
alternative. eDNA refers to genetic material shed by organisms into their
environment through skin cells, faeces, mucous, or other biological processes
(Taberlet et al., 2012). Its application in karst research allows for
sensitive, non-invasive detection of species and provides new opportunities for
hydrological tracing and ecological monitoring. This paper integrates insights
from groundwater tracing and karstological studies to evaluate the potential of
eDNA for advancing knowledge on karst ecosystems.
The Use of eDNA in Karst Systems
eDNA offers unique opportunities for research in karst
environments due to its versatility across multiple scientific domains.
Applications include:
- Species
detection and identification: eDNA enables the detection of rare,
cryptic, or inaccessible organisms, providing an advantage over
conventional survey techniques (Deiner et al., 2017).
- Mapping
species distribution: Through systematic sampling, eDNA allows the
creation of detailed species distribution maps across inaccessible
subterranean environments.
- Studying
ecosystem functioning: eDNA metabarcoding can reveal information on
community composition, nutrient cycling, and decomposition processes,
offering insights into karst ecosystem dynamics.
- Groundwater
tracing and aquifer connectivity: eDNA can act as a natural tracer,
revealing the movement of biological material within aquifers, thus
complementing or surpassing dye tracing in certain contexts.
Advantages of eDNA Approaches
The adoption of eDNA in karst and groundwater studies offers
several benefits:
- Non-invasive
sampling: Unlike physical surveys, eDNA sampling requires minimal
disturbance to ecosystems.
- High
sensitivity and specificity: eDNA techniques can detect very small
amounts of DNA, enabling identification of rare or low-abundance species.
- Cost-effectiveness:
Compared to long-term monitoring or invasive sampling campaigns, eDNA
offers a relatively low-cost approach to biodiversity and hydrological
assessments (Thomsen & Willerslev, 2015).
- Multidisciplinary
applications: eDNA provides a single platform for both ecological and
hydrological investigations, enhancing its research value.
Limitations and Challenges
Despite its promise, the use of eDNA in karst and aquifer
studies faces several challenges:
- Uncertainty
in eDNA dynamics: The processes governing DNA shedding, transport, and
degradation in groundwater remain poorly understood (Barnes & Turner,
2016).
- False
positives and negatives: Contamination, persistence of legacy DNA, and
detection thresholds can complicate interpretation.
- Standardisation
issues: Lack of universal protocols for eDNA sampling and analysis
limits comparability across studies and ecosystems.
Several studies have demonstrated the utility of eDNA in
karst and aquifer research:
- Species
detection in groundwater: eDNA has been employed to reveal
subterranean biodiversity, highlighting previously undocumented species
presence in groundwater habitats.
- Tracing
groundwater flow: Research has shown that eDNA can trace biological
material through karst conduits, offering insights into flow dynamics and
aquifer connectivity. These applications demonstrate the potential of eDNA
to serve as both an ecological and hydrological tracer.
Future Directions
For eDNA to reach its full potential in karstological and
groundwater studies, future research should prioritise:
- Improving
understanding of eDNA dynamics – Controlled laboratory and field
experiments are needed to quantify shedding, persistence, and transport in
karst groundwater.
- Developing
standardised protocols – Harmonisation of methodologies will improve
reproducibility and comparability across studies.
- Integration
with other methods – Combining eDNA with traditional techniques, such
as dye tracing, geophysics, and hydrochemistry, can provide a holistic
understanding of karst processes.
- Expanding
ecological applications – Beyond hydrology, eDNA could offer insights
into ecosystem resilience, responses to climate change, and conservation
planning in karst environments.
Conclusion
Environmental DNA has emerged as a transformative tool in
karst research, bridging hydrology and ecology. Its application in groundwater
tracing and aquifer connectivity complements and extends traditional methods,
while its capacity for species detection and ecosystem analysis enriches
understanding of subterranean biodiversity. Despite limitations, continued
methodological refinement and interdisciplinary integration will cement eDNA as
a cornerstone of future karst science.
References
Barnes, M.A. & Turner, C.R. (2016) The ecology of
environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics. Conservation
Genetics, 17(1), 1–17.
Deiner, K., Bik, H.M., Mächler, E., Seymour, M., Lacoursière-Roussel, A.,
Altermatt, F., Creer, S., Bista, I., Lodge, D.M., de Vere, N., Pfrender, M.E.
& Bernatchez, L. (2017) Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how
we survey animal and plant communities. Molecular Ecology, 26(21),
5872–5895.
Goldscheider, N. & Drew, D. (2007) Methods in Karst Hydrogeology.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Taberlet, P., Coissac, E., Hajibabaei, M. & Rieseberg, L.H. (2012)
Environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology, 21(8), 1789–1793.
Thomsen, P.F. & Willerslev, E. (2015) Environmental DNA – An emerging tool
in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biological
Conservation, 183, 4–18.
Comments