Table 2. Percentage of Litoria species positive detections per eDNA capture method during the wet season sampling.
| Site | 15 mL samples | 100 mL samples | Filtration | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L. lorica | L. nannotis | L. lorica | L. nannotis | L. lorica | L. nannotis | |
| 1 | 0 | 8.3 | 0 | – | – | – |
| 2 (translocated) | 0 | 43.3 | 12.5 | – | – | – |
| 3 | 0 | 1.6 | 0 | – | – | – |
| 4 | 1.7 | 28.3 | 0 | – | – | – |
| 5 | 0 | 3.3 | 0 | – | 0 | 0 |
| 6 (main pop) | 0 | 25.0 | 13.9 | 44.4 | – | – |
| 7 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 37.5 | 45.8 | 100 | 66.7 |
| 8 | 0 | 3.3 | 0 | 27.1 | 0 | 91.6 |
| 9 | 3.3 | 0 | 16.7 | – | 50.0 | 83.3 |
| 10 | 0 | 5.0 | 12.5 | – | 17.0 | 25.0 |
Note:
The number in each data cell represents the percentage of technical replicates that were positive. There was no data for L. nannotis for the 100 mL sampling method from sites 1–5 and 9–10 due to a mechanical failure of the qPCR machine. The filtration method lacks data for sites 1–4 and 6 because it was only conducted at five key sites.