A molecular specimen bank for contemporary and future study captures landscape-scale biodiversity baselines before Klamath River dam removal 

A molecular specimen bank for contemporary and future study captures landscape-scale biodiversity baselines before Klamath River dam removal | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article A molecular specimen bank for contemporary and future study captures landscape-scale biodiversity baselines before Klamath River dam removal Dylan J. Keel, Katie Karpenko, Scott M. Blankenship, Gregg Schumer, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575262/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 01 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 8 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Global restoration and conservation of freshwater biodiversity are represented in practice by works such as the Klamath River Renewal Project (KRRP), the largest dam removal and river restoration in the United States, which has reconnected 640 river kilometers. With dam removals, many biological outcomes remain understudied due to a lack of pre-impact data and complex ecosystem recovery timeframes. To avoid this, we created the KRRP molecular library, an environmental specimen bank, for long-term curation of environmental nucleic acids collected from the restoration project. We used these initial samples, environmental DNA metabarcoding, and generalized linear mixed-effects models to evaluate patterns of pre-dam removal fish richness and diversity. Demonstrating the suitability to resolve biological differences, the baseline shows that tributary and mainstem streams had greater native fish diversity and 2.3–10.7 times greater native fish species richness than reservoirs. These and future sampling efforts should, at a minimum, allow tracking of fish community response to ecosystem restoration. Anticipating the acceleration of omics innovation, we preserved samples for long-term storage and identified requisite phases for sustained function and adaptation of the molecular library: securing a physical storage facility for genetic material, establishing a governance structure, and confirming support for archive management. Biological sciences/Biochemistry/Dna Biological sciences/Biochemistry/Rna Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology/Ecological genetics Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology/Ecological modelling Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental sciences/Environmental impact Environmental DNA (eDNA) Klamath metabarcoding environmental specimen bank (ESB) dam removal river restoration Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction Freshwater habitats are vital for human and ecosystem wellbeing 1 . Lotic and lentic habitats support economic, recreational, and cultural services, while being home to much larger levels of endemism, fish species richness, and biodiversity than their spatial footprint alone would suggest 2 . For millennia, human dependence on river ecosystems has created cumulative impacts that have become larger, more widespread, and difficult to manage. This has contributed to a global increase in species extinctions, decline in freshwater species abundance, and a loss of biodiversity and ecosystem function 3 , 4 . A rising awareness of the threats and peril to rivers and the human populations served by these ecosystems has emerged 2 , 5 , 6 and led to calls for management plans addressing restoration and recovery of freshwater ecosystems 1 , 7 – 10 . These discussions about the conservation and restoration of freshwater biodiversity often recommend measures to maintain or restore river connectivity and the associated ecological processes and functions (e.g., natural flow, sediment, and temperature regimes) contained in free-flowing rivers 11 – 14 . Over the past two decades, dam removal has been increasingly used as a tool to restore river connectivity, while also removing obsolete, unsafe, or inconsequential structures no longer meeting their intended purpose 15 – 17 . Although most dam removal outcomes are unstudied 18 , the number and diversity of studies addressing the physical and biological outcomes is increasing 19 . Yet, there remains ample space to explore new approaches and emerging technologies to address the outcomes from dam removal. Ecosystems are inherently complex, with multiple interacting species, processes, and environmental factors 20 . Additionally, baseline conditions may shift over time due to natural variability or human influence, making it difficult to interpret monitoring metrics or determine progress towards recovery goals. Ecosystem changes occur over various temporal scales, from short-term fluctuations to long-term trends. Spatial heterogeneity within and among ecosystems may also influence how monitoring metrics change 21 . The methods used to assess ecosystem recovery, such as remote sensing, field surveys, and genetic analyses, each have limitations. These might include resolution constraints, scale limitations, and detection limits 22 , 23 . Combining multiple methods often provides a more comprehensive view needed for evaluation, but integrating different types of data or consolidating different data systems introduces challenges. The type of monitoring conducted must capture the appropriate scales required for program objectives, including where and when changes are occurring, what is changing, and what is causing change. Identifying appropriate indicators to measure that are informative about ecosystem status and recovery is challenging. Indicators must be sensitive to change, relevant across different scales, and robust to natural variability. Further, a combination of biotic and abiotic indicators is needed, each having specialized requirements for measurement and interpretation 24 . Advances in quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) have enabled researchers to ask broad and targeted ecological questions using environmental DNA (eDNA) and environmental RNA (eRNA) 25 – 28 . Environmental DNA and eRNA, collectively referred to as environmental nucleic acids (eNA), are cost effective 29 , non-invasive 30 , and effective tools for monitoring the distribution of aquatic species at broad geographic scales 31 , 32 . Increasingly, molecular tools including eNA have been used to document broadscale changes to biodiversity after restoration including landscape-scale species reestablishment programs 33 , stream restoration, changes to land use and watershed management 34 , and following large-scale dam removals 35 – 37 . Additionally, the rapid evolution of NGS tools including environmental metagenomics (the collection of genomes in an environmental sample) and environmental metatranscriptomics (the collection of gene transcripts in an environmental sample) presents opportunities to assess community level changes to genetic diversity and gene expression following restoration, particularly with microorganisms 38 , 39 . Environmental specimen banks are programs that curate physical storage of environmental samples through time for future monitoring and research. Although most focus on preserving samples for the analysis of environmental contaminants, chemical trends, human and animal tissues, plant tissues, and environmental samples, molecular focused environmental specimen banks present an opportunity to assess long-term changes in biodiversity from preserved genetic material 40 . Recently, existing environmental samples stored in environmental specimen banks have been opportunistically utilized to measure changes in biodiversity through time with eNA 41 – 43 , but challenges remain regarding the ability of regional environmental specimen banks to capture and preserve eNA with sufficient resolution to assess restoration projects 44 – 46 . It has been shown that cryopreservation of both DNA and RNA in liquid nitrogen successfully preserves and maintains the integrity of nucleic acids over decades. One study reported that RNA isolated from breast cancer samples stored for a minimum of 10 years in the vapor phase of liquid nitrogen exhibited significantly higher RNA Integrity Number equivalent (RINe) values compared to those stored at − 80°C, indicating superior preservation of RNA quality with liquid nitrogen storage 47 . Although preserved environmental samples can retain usable genetic material for decades, extracted and purified DNA and RNA can retain sufficient quantity and quality for much longer, possibly up to tens of thousands of years 48 . The Klamath River Renewal Project (KRRP; also called Lower Klamath Project) is the largest dam removal and river restoration in the history of the United States and represents a unique opportunity to study landscape-scale change. Extending across northern California and southern Oregon, the project includes the removal of four hydroelectric dams and their associated infrastructure along the Klamath River (Fig. 1 ). Dam removal and subsequent restoration of the former reservoir footprints to a riverine condition is intended to reconnect over 640 km of habitat for anadromous and migratory fishes, restore native vegetation across over 800 ha of previously drowned land, and improve water quality and habitat conditions within the 305 km of mainstem river downstream from the dams 49 . Dam removal was completed—with volitional fish passage restored in fall 2024 (Fig. 2 ) — with anticipated fisheries and ecosystem function benefitting local communities, including members of the Indigenous Tribes who have relied on a healthy and well managed Klamath River since time immemorial 50 – 52 . Despite the expected benefits of dam removal, there are few long-term studies that have demonstrated population level responses in fish. The scale and importance of the KRRP presents a unique opportunity to address the long-term outcomes of dam removal on fish population response and the processes involved in ecosystem recovery. We created the Molecular Library (ML) as an environmental specimen bank specifically to preserve eNA as a data legacy for long-term assessment of dam removal outcomes and associated reestablishment of native species along the Klamath River, as well as the global effort to understand biodiversity response to landscape-scale restoration. The ML is a novel approach: to develop an environmental specimen bank that combines the best practices for evaluating biodiversity response to restoration through time 53 and accounts for challenges faced by existing environmental specimen banks for the effective capture and preservation of eNA 44 . Our objectives were to: 1) introduce and document a framework for landscape-scale restoration research and monitoring with eNA that aims to apply best modern practices to create a molecular library of samples for the purpose of short-term use (contemporary analysis) and long-term use (archiving for posterity); and 2) demonstrate sample validation and baseline conditions (pre-dam removal) of fish communities across longitudinally placed sample sites upstream and downstream of the former dams, within reservoir reaches, and reference reaches in tributaries. Methods Site Selection We established an initial experimental design anticipated to address both short- and long-term changes within 114 km of river and tributary areas impacted by the KRRP. A key aspect of the design was to ensure that sites would be accessible both physically (regardless of environmental conditions) and jurisdictionally via stable public lands 54 . Based on previous dam removal monitoring efforts 55 – 57 , we expected significant short-term changes to the river ecosystem to be encompassed within the project area proximate to the four dams (i.e., spanning from just upstream of the J.C. Boyle uppermost reservoir to 3.5 km downstream of the lowermost Iron Gate Reservoir). As such, we systematically established 20 monitoring locations every 2 km along the Klamath River mainstem and reservoirs and 17 locations every 1 km along selected tributaries within the anadromous zone (Fig. 1 ). Scaled systematic distance between monitoring locations of 2 km and 1 km respectively were used to reduce the probability of extra-organismal eNA being transported between sites 58 . However, we also recognize that flexibility of the design for future expansion of sampling locations may be necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes or related study questions 54 . We also established two different types of comparison sites that were not directly impacted by dam removal. We selected two “control” sites upstream of anadromous barriers in tributaries of the study reach (Fig. 1 ). These were intended to isolate the effects of dam removal (i.e., habitat transition from lentic to lotic, restoring natural flow, sediment, and temperature regimes, and upstream passage of aquatic organisms 59 ) from localized natural variability. Yet, tributary sites upstream of barriers tend to be smaller order watersheds that might not be representative of changes experienced within a larger system like the Klamath River. Thus, we added six additional “reference” sites in the Scott River basin, a large tributary downstream of the project area. Having a range of non-treatment reaches from which to compare treatment (i.e., dam removal) effects will be more representative of recovered conditions and biological communities 60 . We monumented all sites with GPS location, documented each site with photographs, and stored site level information in ArcGIS online for coordination between field teams and long-term data integrity and storage. Field Sampling We collected 405 samples from 44 monitoring locations on 17–20 July, 2023. The summer season from July through August is the preferred time to complete annual sampling due to lower stream discharge that minimizes the dilution of eNA in streams 61 , increasing the probability of detecting key indicator species including bacteria, algae, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, fishes, and pathogens. The sampling window also overlaps with the juvenile life-stage of native migratory fishes within the watershed, increasing the likelihood that eDNA is captured from this life stage specifically 62 – 64 . Access allowing, we collected three liters of stream water from each bank and the center of the channel at each site, for a total of nine liters. The nine liters of water were combined into a single vessel, agitated to encourage homogenization, and decanted into nine replicate samples via a filtering manifold. Each replicate was filtered in the field through 0.45 µm pore-size PVDF Sterivex filters (MilliporeSigma, Burlington, MA, USA; cat #SVHVL10RC), which capture eNA from the environment by trapping particles within the filter matrix, using Masterflex Easy-Load II peristaltic pumps (VWR, Radnor, PA, USA; cat #MFLX77200-52) and sterile Masterflex tubing (VWR, Radnor, PA, USA; cat# MFLX-06509-24) for each monitoring site. Pumps were affixed in parallel to allow for simultaneous filtration of three filter replicates and powered using a brushless, cordless drill with a 12.7 mm spade bit attachment. Field crews followed protocols to assess and minimize the risk of contamination including using sterile single-use filters, caps and tubing, changing nitrile gloves frequently, and collecting field controls at the start of each sampling day (Fig. 3 ). Site-level water quality measurements (water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance) were collected with a Multiparameter Digital Water Quality Meter (Yellow Springs Instruments, Ohio, USA; model #626870-1) and air temperature with a rotating-vane thermistor (KESTREL 3000 – Wind Meter, USA, model #0830). When field sampling was complete, samples were preserved by pipetting into each filter cartridge1.5 mL of RNAprotect Tissue Reagent (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany; cat #76106) following practices to maximize the probability of stabilizing genetic material 27 . Samples were then stored in a portable cooler with blue ice packs before being transferred to a non-frost-free freezer and stored at − 20°C. Molecular Methods Total DNA was isolated from selected filters and purified to remove non-target cellular and environmental contaminants using the QIAamp DNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany; cat #51306) and following a standard protocol with modifications 65 . First, RNAprotect Tissue Reagent was evacuated from each filter by manually shaking the liquid from the cartridge. The exterior of each filter was sterilized with a PCR clean wipe (Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ, USA; cat #C791Q58) to avoid cross contamination. We added 440 µL of the Buffer PBS/Buffer AL/Proteinase K lysis solution 65 to each filter by injecting the solution into the Sterivex cartridge using a filtered pipette tip. The filters were incubated for 5 min at 56°C, then affixed to a Vortex-Genie 2 mixer (Scientific Industries, Bohemia, NY, USA; cat #SI0236) to undergo two ten-minute room temperature vortex sessions. Between sessions, the filters were rotated 180° to ensure full coverage of the filter membrane. The solution was transferred from the Sterivex cartridge to a 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube, and then QIAamp mini spin columns were used to bind DNA, and the remainder of the DNA purification and elution steps followed the published protocol 65 . DNA extraction controls, created by adding 880 µL of the lysis solution to a sterile Sterivex filter, were processed in parallel with samples to confirm sample integrity throughout the extraction procedure. All samples and controls were passed through the Zymo OneStep PCR Inhibitor Removal Kit (Zymo Research, Irvine, California, USA; cat #D6030) following manufacturers guidelines. DNA extraction was completed in a separate pre-PCR space using sterilized surfaces and equipment. Purified eNA can be analyzed using a variety of molecular techniques. For this study, we used DNA metabarcoding to assess the community-level composition of fish taxa at each sampling location. Metabarcoding employs next-generation sequencing with universal primers to sequence a diagnostic region of DNA that allows for species identification across taxa. We used a multiplex of the MiFish-U primer set 66 and a modified version of the MiFish-U-F primer (GIQHerp-F), designed to enhance detection of herptile taxa, to sequence a 170 bp region of vertebrate 12S rRNA mitochondrial genome using three-step PCR approach adapted from previously published library preparation methodologies 66 , 67 . The initial PCR was completed using non-indexed primers to enrich subsequent reactions for target DNA. Each sample was amplified in triplicate, in a total reaction volume of 10 µl containing 4 µl extracted eDNA, 0.4 µM of each forward primer (MiFish-U-F: 5’- GTCGGTAAAACTCGTGCCAGC-3’, GIQHerp-F: 5’- GCCGGCTAATCTGGTGCCAGC-3’), 0.8 µM MiFish-U-R (5’- CATAGTGGGGTATCTAATCCCAGTTTG-3’), and 1X Qiagen Plus Multiplex Master Mix (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany; cat #206145). Cycling began with an initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 min, followed by 35 cycles of 95°C for 15 seconds, 5% ramp down to 55°C for 30 seconds, and 72°C for 30 seconds. The triplicate PCR products were pooled then diluted 1:10 prior to starting the Illumina adapter and barcoding processes. The Illumina hanging tail adapters were incorporated using the MiFish-U and GIQHerp primer multiplex containing the 33 or 34 bp 5’ Illumina hanging tail adaptor sequences to provide a priming site for the addition of dual indexed barcode sequences. Each reaction consisted of a 12 µl total volume containing 2 µl pooled and diluted product from the previous PCR, 0.3 µM of each Illumina adapter forward primer, 0.6 µM of the Illumina adapter reverse primer, and 6 µl KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN; cat #07958935001). The cycling profile was as follows: 95°C for 5 min, 5 cycles of 98°C for 20 seconds, 1% ramp down to 65°C for 15 seconds, and 72°C for 15 seconds, then 7 cycles of 98°C for 20 seconds, 5% ramp down to 65°C for 15 seconds, 72°C for 15 seconds. PCR products were diluted 1:10 and used as template in the final PCR step. The paired-end dual indices that allow for sample identification and de-multiplexing were incorporated during the final PCR step. Each PCR was completed in a total volume of 12 µl, composed of 0.3 µM of the forward and reverse index primers, 6 µl 1X KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix, and 1 µl of the diluted product from the previous PCR. Amplification started with 95°C for 3 min, followed by 10 cycles of 98°C for 20 seconds, 5% ramp down to 72°C for 15 seconds, and final extension 72°C for 5 min. All PCR steps were completed using BioRad C1000 Touch thermal cyclers (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA) in a designated PCR space. Equal volumes of the indexed PCR products were pooled, then size selected (c. 370) using 2% gel electrophoresis and purified using QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany; cat #28704) following the manufacturers guidelines for next-generation sequencing. Purified libraries were quantified using the Qubit 4 fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA; cat #Q33226) and Qubit dsDNA HS assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA; cat # Q33231), and sequenced on the Illumina Miseq system (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) using the v2 300-cycle chemistry. The final loading concentration was 8 pM with a 10% PhiX spike-in added as a sequencing control. Using a UV sterilized hood, we prepared master mix for all PCR steps and added extracted DNA during the initial PCR. All intermediate dilution, DNA transfer, and final pooling steps were completed in designated post-PCR spaces using sterilized pipettes and bench tops. No template PCR controls were processed in parallel with samples and sequenced to confirm process integrity. To determine provisional species identification, the resultant sequencing data were compiled and processed using the MetaWorks pipeline, 12S vertebrate classifier, and default parameters 68 . The data output from this pipeline grouped identical sequences into zero-radius operational taxonomic units (ZOTUs) and provided a provisional species identification of each unique sequence using the selected classifier. We removed any ZOTUs with less than 100 sequence reads to screen out potential artifact sequences. The provisional taxonomic assignment was verified against the NIH National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank nr reference database (Accessed 20 Dec. 2024) using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST 69 ; https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi ). BLAST compares DNA nucleotide variation between sequences to calculate genetic similarity of input (detected) sequences to known voucher sequences. The BLAST output was further curated to determine the final species identification. ZOTUs were assigned to species when sequence identity was greater than or equal to 97% with 100% query coverage to a single species. ZOTUs that matched multiple species with the same percent ID and query coverage criteria were further evaluated for historical occurrence in the sampling region, and only species that could occur in the sampling region were assigned. If more than one species matched within the stated BLAST criteria and could co-occur in the sampling region, the ZOTU was assigned to the taxonomic level that appropriately captured all potential matches (e.g., Cottus spp.). ZOTUs that matched GenBank sequences with less than 95% identity were considered too dissimilar to be accurately identified and were removed from the analysis. Similarly, ZOTUs that did not produce any matches to GenBank were also screened out as unidentifiable. Any detections that could result from anthropogenic inputs (human, cat, dog, cow, chicken, and pig) were removed from analysis. Additionally, we removed detections of fish species that were anomalous for the sampling region and have been previously identified as contaminants. These species included common bleak ( Alburnus alburnus ), common barbell ( Barbus barbus ), common chub ( Squalius cephalus) , and ballyhoo ( Hemiramphus brasiliensis ). Statistical Methods We used sequence reads of fish taxa to visualize data and calculate diversity metrics for analysis. The average rarefied sequence read concentration per taxon across three site replicates was calculated based on the volume of water that was filtered (mL), the re-suspended volume of purified DNA from DNA extraction (µL), the volume of purified DNA added to the initial PCR (µL per reaction), and the sequence reads per taxon (reads per reaction). The flow-adjusted sequence read rate per monitoring location i of taxon j ( reads per second i,j ) was calculated whereby monitoring location specific discharge ( Q i ) is estimated as a function of contributing drainage area of monitoring location i , and reads per second i,j is equal to the product of reads per mL taxon j and mL per second ( Qi ) 70 . Native fish diversity (diversity) was estimated per monitoring location by the Shannon-Wiener diversity index using R-package vegan based on relative abundance ( reads per second i,j ) 71 . Native fish richness (richness) per monitoring location was calculated based on the total number of native fishes detected with greater than 100 sequence reads. Site-level species composition relationships were visualized via non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) using a Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrix generated from rarefied sequence reads. Species vectors based on significant correlations (p < 0.001) with ordination axes were overlayed to highlight species contributing to group separation. All NMDS calculations were completed using the vegan R-package and visualized at the habitat scale (stream vs. reservoir) with 95% confidence ellipses using ggplot2 R-package 71 . We performed all statistical analyses in R 72 . The relationships between the covariates of habitat type (reservoir vs. stream), stream size (mainstem vs. tributary), control vs. impact, reference vs. impact, dissolved oxygen (mg per L), and specific conductance (µS per cm) and response variables were evaluated using generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs). Diversity was modeled as a binomial response, with extreme low diversity sites (Shannon-Wiener diversity index 0.05). Richness was modeled as a count. To identify properly specified models, a binomial GLMM (diversity), with a logit link function, and a Poisson GLMM (richness), with a log link function, were fit with a random effect for waterbody and the fixed effects described above. Additional explanatory variables were not considered to avoid multicollinearity which was examined with R-package Highland Statistics Ver. 10 73 . The Poisson GLMM was assessed for overdispersion via data simulation with the dispersion_check function in R-package inlatools 74 . Because no evidence of overdispersion was found, other probability density functions were not considered. Continuous explanatory variables were scaled to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. We used spatial Pearson residuals of non-spatial GLMMs to construct semi-variograms to test for spatial autocorrelation 75 . Semi-variograms of Euclidean distance on the scale of 5,000 m between sites were assessed and the percentage of the residual variance associated with the spatial effect was quantified with the sill to nugget ratio 76 . The semi-variograms revealed evidence of spatial autocorrelation on the scale of ~ 2,500 m for both models. To account for the residual spatial autocorrelation, the GLMMs were fitted with stochastic partial differential equations (SPDEs) to introduce Gaussian spatial random field effects. Models were fitted using the integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA), a method that uses a Bayesian framework and was implemented in R software 75 , 77 , 78 . Additional information on model parameterization, INLA model fitting, diagnostics, and interpretation of the spatial random field can be found in the Supplemental Materials: Statistical Methods. We determined model goodness of fit (GOF) via posterior predictive checks by comparing simulated and observed data and summarizing with a Bayesian P-value. The GOF of models was considered suitable if the Bayesian P-value was between 0.1 and 0.9. Additionally, predictive power of the properly specified binomial GLMM was assessed by calculating area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) to measure the model’s true positive rate (sensitivity) with R-package pROC , and the properly specified Poisson GLMM was assessed by calculating the percent of the variance explained by the model with pseudo-R 2 (R 2 ) 79 . Because single global models were fitted for diversity and richness, only those parameters with 95% credible intervals (95% CI) that did not span zero were considered significant and suitable for inference. Results We processed three replicated eDNA samples for each of the 44 monitoring locations across the study area in July 2023, placing the remaining six samples per site into the molecular library archive for future use. A total of 132 samples, 3 negative extraction controls, and 6 negative PCR controls were successfully sequenced. The metabarcoding methods and bioinformatic pipeline resulted in a total of 10,682,995 reads (mean = 71,697 ± 50,949 reads/sample). The total number of reads per sample prior to filtering ranged from 30 to 255,711. Following removal of ZOTUs with less than 100 sequence reads, total read count decreased to 10,634,394 (mean = 77,060 ± 48,536 reads/sample), with a range of 841 to 255,234 reads per sample. Taxonomic identification and subsequent removal of poor matches to GenBank and taxa from anthropogenic sources reduced read count to 10,184,373 total reads (mean = 75,439 ± 46,830 reads/sample) with 780 to 254,903 reads/sample. Of the remaining sequences, 9,863,134 reads (mean = 76,458 ± 45,364 reads/sample) were identified as originating from fish taxa, with a median number of reads per taxon, pooled over monitoring locations, of 5,844. We detected low levels of cross-sample contamination in some extraction controls and PCR controls (mean = 32 ± 154 reads/sample). The extraction and PCR controls were free of contamination following the removal of ZOTUs with less than 100 reads. Common bleak, common barbell, and common chub were detected in 0.75% of samples and ballyhoo was detected in 9.8% of samples at greater than 100 reads. All environmental samples produced data that passed quality control. However, two of three samples collected at Scotch Creek did not contain fish detections and were therefore not included in subsequent analysis. We detected 8 native fish taxa and 13 exotic fish taxa across monitoring locations. In addition to fishes, we detected eDNA from 10 reptile and amphibian taxa, 12 bird taxa, and 14 mammal taxa (Supplemental Materials Table 1 -Metabarcoding Species Data). Shannon-Wiener diversity index of native fish species at monitoring locations ranged from 0 to 1.61 with a median value of 0.79. Native fish richness ranged from zero to eight taxa with a median value of four. Data visualization with NMDS revealed a grouping by habitat type (reservoir vs. stream), with all the reservoir monitoring locations falling within the reservoir 95% confidence ellipse, and all but four stream monitoring locations falling within the stream 95% confidence ellipse (Fig. 4 ). Significant species vectors included the native fishes: Catostomidae, speckled dace ( Rhinichthys osculus ), and rainbow trout/steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), and the exotic fishes: goldfish ( Carassius aurataus) , yellow perch (Perca flavescens ), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas ), and black crappie (P omoxis nigromaculatus ) (Fig. 4 ). These results suggest that group differences along the first NMDS axis are largely driven by differences in native and exotic fish species presence. Table 1 Expected elements of the Klamath River Renewal Project Molecular Library that will define the management, operation, and governance structure. Each element of the table is derived from cited best practices documents. Item Description Citations Metadata (see details in Supplemental Table 2). A description of all fields related to the eNA data, including specifics on study focus, site characteristics (e.g., coordinates, waterbody name, reach location), unique site identifiers, sample collection methods (e.g., sample depth, level of replication, and molecular/eNA specific techniques (e.g., filter pore size, extraction protocol, preservation method). Metadata should be machine readable and published with a globally unique and persistent identifier (DOI). 95 , 96 ‘FAIR’ Practices A methodology for ensuring whether data are FAIR: findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. In the context of the Klamath eNA library, this means that the accession numbers associated with individual studies, samples, and metadata are identifiable and interoperable. 97 Archiving sequence reads To help users adhere to FAIR principles in data archiving, protocols and best practices for archiving sequence reads are imperative. These include standardized data formats, formal data archive management, and centralization. 98 Access and data ownership protocols Data sharing policies and procedure for governing access, distribution and transfer of molecular library materials. Protocols would encourage streamlined access and encouragement for sharing with partners, while protecting the integrity of the molecular library samples. To include development of a material and data transfer agreement that outlines the description of the specimens and their intended use. Also provides data ownership guidelines and provision of feedback and metadata into the molecular library. 99 Guidelines and best practices for future additions into the library A framework for repositing new samples into the library that includes procedures and requirements for data and metadata, sample tracking, and chain-of-custody. 99 Maintenance and long-term storage Determining maintenance and upkeep procedures for the facility (e.g., university museum, government research laboratory) that houses the long-term storage of the genetic library and minimum requirements. 100 The GLMM modeling framework resulted in ecological models that assessed the relationship between the covariates of habitat type (reservoir vs. stream), stream size (mainstem river vs. tributary), control vs. impact, reference vs. impact, dissolved oxygen (mg per L), and specific conductance (µS per cm) and response variables (diversity and richness). The diversity model passed GOF and resulted in a true positive rate of 96.9% (AUC = 0.969). The binomial GLMM had three covariates that did not span zero: habitat type, stream size, control vs. impact, and reference vs. impact. The model suggests that after accounting for the random effects of waterbody and spatial position, the log-odds that reservoir locations will have extreme low native fish diversity is at least 7.71 times (95% Credible Interval(CI): 7.71– 40.8 times) greater than the log-odds that stream locations will have extreme low native fish diversity. Additionally, the log-odds that mainstem sites had low native fish diversity was lower than that of tributary sites (95% CI: -35.4 – -3.73), and that impact sites in the dam removal reach had low diversity was lower than the reference sites in the Scott River Watershed (95% CI: -22.6 – -1.31) (Fig. 5 ). The richness model passed GOF and described 71% of the variance in native fish taxa richness (R 2 = 0.705) (Fig. 5 ). The model suggests that after accounting for the random effects of waterbody and spatial position, streams were expected to have 2.3–10.7 (95% CI) times greater native fish richness than reservoirs. Additionally, tributaries were expected to have between 13.8 and 56.3% less (95% CI) native fish richness than mainstem river sites. Model validation plots, model formulas, and model fit summaries are available in the Supplemental Materials:-Statistical Methods. Discussion We created the KRPP molecular library as a forward thinking, long-term data framework that can fill an important gap in understanding the outcomes of a large-scale dam removal and river restoration. The dam removal literature has a paucity of long-term data showing ecosystem outcomes and complexities of processes that generally have pronounced short-term effects (e.g., restoration of connectivity, transitioning of lotic to lentic conditions) followed by a long-term response 59 . The molecular library introduces a framework for landscape-scale restoration research and monitoring with eNA. By collecting eNA from the Klamath River and tributaries before dam removal and establishing a repeatable protocol for subsequent collection, preservation, and analysis, we created a baseline for managers and researchers to retrospectively query changes to the pre-impact condition. Additionally, we demonstrated the validity of this methodology for discerning patterns in landscape biodiversity by analyzing the effects of pre-dam removal habitat types on the native fish community. Although useful in the current context, we identified three requisite phases of development for the long-term maintenance and function of the molecular library as an eNA environmental specimen bank: 1) a physical facility for the long-term storage of extracted genetic material, 2) the establishment of a formalized governance structure to guide the ethical and equitable use of the finite genetic material, and 3) the identification of consistent support for archive management and the development and curation of a user-friendly, public-facing database of sequence reads. Utility and design of the molecular library The molecular library currently consists of 44 monitoring locations, spanning approximately 114 km of the Klamath River and tributaries. The spatial scale used ensures that localized effects are captured alongside broader ecosystem changes. The envisioned multi-decade temporal scale can help distinguish between short-term responses and true recovery trends. Partitioning short- and longer-term effects would not be possible without establishing a stable long-term storage and archive for eNA, in addition to an eNA “time capsule” for posterity. The molecular library design incorporated monitoring reference and control sites that are unaffected by the dam removal but have similar ecological and environmental conditions. The reference sites will provide information on natural variability, helping to isolate the effects of dam removal from other environmental changes. In the baseline samples, we found evidence that the reference sites in the Scott River Watershed had weak to moderate odds of having lower native fish diversity than similar sites that will be impacted by dam removal. Additionally, we found evidence that tributaries had lower native fish diversity than mainstem Klamath River sites. These results highlight the importance of including pre-impact data and both reference and control sites as well as aquatic habitat strata (i.e., mainstem vs. tributary) when creating a baseline to assess recovery trends 53 , 54 . The molecular library will enable biological (e.g., community composition, relative abundance) and physical (e.g., sediment transport, water quality) metrics to be combined in the assessment. Integrated assessments are preferred, and have been planned for in the design, as integration provides a more holistic view of ecosystem recovery critical to understanding the full impact of dam removal. Additionally, the library has the capacity to support the use of ecological models to study outcomes of dam removal under various scenarios, with a short-term emphasis on biological responses. Supporting ecological models may help to study outcomes, guide adaptive management, and identify key uncertainties where additional data collection may be needed. As exemplified herein, these data are highly suitable for detecting differences in community composition by habitat type and confirmed our pre-dam removal expectations: that the odds of low native fish diversity are far greater among reservoir sites along the Klamath River than in streams, and that streams in the study area have greater native species richness than reservoir sites (Fig. 6 ). The library can be used to generate information about key indicator species expected to respond strongly to changes in the ecosystem or significant management decisions. Early signs of ecological recovery or deterioration would be seen from response of indicator species, providing timely information about effectiveness of dam removal. Pre-dam removal conditions revealed that reservoirs had low native fish diversity, and they were characterized by the presence of exotic species that were generally absent or in low abundance in streams (Fig. 6 ). These differences in species composition were visualized using NMDS plots (Fig. 4 ), that showed a clear differentiation between stream and reservoir groups, which can be tracked through time when comparing post-dam removal species compositions. Additionally, these results are consistent with the known species composition in the basin between lentic and lotic habitats 80 . The emergence of significantly correlated presence of non-native indicator species within reservoir sites demonstrated the utility of metabarcoding to illuminate differences in species composition and could provide a useful approach in the future to track the ecosystem response trajectory at former reservoir sites. Timely and consistent information about indicator species would allow for adaptive adjustments in monitoring, management, and restoration strategies, ultimately increasing the chances of successful recovery. Ecological models used to relate eNA concentration in flowing waters to the distribution and abundance of aquatic species should account for directional transport over space and time, dilution, decay, deposition, and entrainment of genetic material, throughout a river network 81 , 82 . Additionally, species distribution models should account for the potential for the dispersion of the species that release genetic material to be spatially autocorrelated as well 74 . However, reservoirs and other impoundments to regular streamflow represent challenges for using existing models that integrate hydrology and the transport of genetic material by violating assumptions of unidirectional flow 83 , 84 . Due to a series of reservoirs being present in the pre-dam removal condition on the Klamath River, we chose to use estimated stream discharge as a proxy for downstream transport distance of genetic material 58 and use distances between monitoring sites to reduce the probability of extra-organismal eNA being transported between sites. In other river systems where isolation by transport distance is not suitable (i.e., greater spatial sampling frequency is required), or when target organisms may predominantly release organismal-eNA (e.g., spores, gametes, larvae) that persist over longer transport distances 85 , 86 , additional sampling considerations and models that incorporate a spatial stream-network (SSN) autocorrelative structure may be warranted. Although eDNA species detections in this study were largely consistent with the known species composition in the basin by habitat type 80 , due to the proximity of upstream reservoirs to three monitoring sites in the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Reservoir, Copco Reservoir, and JC Boyle Reservoir (Fig. 6 location numbers four, eight, and eleven respectively), it remains unclear whether the detections at those sites were a function of the downstream transport of eDNA or downstream transport of the species themselves. Future studies hoping to use eNA to describe change in species compositions following large-scale geomorphic and hydraulic changes associated with dam removal, may require accounting for eNA transport dynamics in reservoirs to describe the change from baseline conditions. Dam removal is expected to alter the connectivity among populations and community networks, which in turn may cause shifts in demography, reproductive success, and life history diversity 59 , 87 – 89 . Given that data from the molecular library would provide information on where and when species occur, observed changes to species distributions would support genetic monitoring activities. Genetic data can provide insights into the connectivity of populations, potential re-establishment events, and the overall health of species that might not be apparent from population counts alone 90 . Building a tool for the future: roles, governance, and establishing a long-term molecular sample library The goal to establish a long-term archive of eNA samples to track ecosystem response to the historical KRRP arises from two fundamental realizations. First, genomic technologies, reference libraries, and phylogenetic metaknowledge will continue to advance over time, providing new tools, approaches, and interpretations 91 that will be incorporated into molecular ecology applications such as studying the biological and ecological outcomes of dam removal. For example, having contemporaneous samples from the time periods before and immediately following dam removal, as well as future samples that become available, should be useful for future researchers applying these new technologies and asking questions that we currently cannot anticipate. For example, life history diversity of salmonids increased in the Elwha River following dam removal 89 and genomic variation corresponded with traditionally observed ecotypes of Pacific lamprey ( Entosphenus tridentatus ) in the Klamath River 92 . How expression of life history diversity in the Klamath River Basin unfolds is yet to be seen, but curating collected genetic material and associated metadata, and future genomic applications of eNA, will maximize utility of the molecular library far beyond our immediate use. The second realization is that the response of the ecosystem to dam removal will continue to unfold over the next several decades, a timespan rarely encompassed in dam removal or river restoration evaluations 19 . Although early results in the Klamath River and elsewhere show that fish readily occupy upstream areas following restored connectivity, documenting how that translates into increased productivity, life history diversity, and community dynamics can take longer to unfold 35 , 87 , 93 , 94 . For example, the life span of Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) and steelhead trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) dictates that only about two or three generations pass per decade (i.e., spawner-to-spawner), meaning that the cumulative response of populations will unfold over a timespan exceeding typical funding cycles. The long-term archive of eNA will provide an opportunity to study how these ecological processes evolved over several decades, which will improve our understanding of the complexity of river restoration. Despite the obvious benefits of data and sample archives, the reuse of genetic and genomic datasets is uncommon due to the lack of a formalized structure for sample archiving, discovery, and metadata 95 . Although a formalized governance structure and permanent location for the molecular library has yet to be determined, we propose that it follow the principles outlined in several review papers related to genetic-based environmental/tissue sample archives (Table 1 ) 95 – 100 . To ensure that data are discoverable and reusable, adoption of FAIR practices (i.e., findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable 97 ) into the molecular library data sharing agreements would ensure that sample accession numbers and digital object identifiers of studies could be used to track sample use across projects and maintain interoperability. This formalized structure must ensure that future users are able to discover the archive and assess its ability to meet their needs, establish roles and responsibilities as a molecular library user, and include processes for adding additional samples to the archive, with appropriate metadata and data discoverability. Similarly, a robust metadata requirement is recommended, so the existing and future molecular library samples contain the necessary details (e.g., at nested levels of site, filter, and extracted DNA and RNA) of the study and sample context, which is essential for future use and reuse. Data access protocols, including adherence to data sharing guidelines, must be streamlined so that requests to the library—both for repositing new samples and using existing samples—are dealt with in a transparent manner over reasonable timeframes. Finally, determining a home for the library, especially the time capsule element, is critical for ensuring the long-term viability of the samples and any data that are generated from its use. Our intention is to curate the molecular library to enhance the ability for Tribal and agency managers and researchers, local communities, academic institutions, and interested parties to study landscape-scale biological response to dam removal and restoration. Continued engagement with these groups and subsequent additions of samples and sequence reads will facilitate the iterative refinement of the molecular library as an equitably governed public data resource and a progressive tool that provides the genetic material for retrospective analyses of previously unstudied dam removal outcomes. Declarations Acknowledgements We thank Cheryl Dean for her invaluable support and contributions to molecular analysis for this study. Special thanks to Lauren Frick for assistance with geospatial database management and mapping, and John Lang, Joel Ophoff, Olivia Vosburg, Stephen Staiger, and David Coffman for rugged field navigation expertise and data collection activities. Thanks to the extensive and valued internal review by Leanne Knutson with the Yurok Tribal Fisheries Department. Additionally, we want to acknowledge that the Klamath dam removal was the result of advocacy from the Tribes of the Klamath River Basin, state and federal governments, and the many other organizations. Finally, we extend our gratitude to our reviewers for their insightful feedback and support. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Author Contributions DK and DC led the conceptualization of this work, conducted field investigation and data collection, contributed to the original draft, review and editing of the manuscript. KK, GS, and SB led the molecular analysis. DK and KK led the statistical analysis and figure creation. SB, GS, and OO contributed to study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafted content. JD and CO contributed to the conceptualization, investigation, original draft, review and editing of the manuscript. All authors approve of this manuscript being submitted when it reaches its final form. Data Availability Statement All data generated or analyzed during this study are available in publicly accessible repositories. The datasets, along with associated metadata and analysis scripts, are hosted on GitHub and can be accessed at [https://github.com/Dylan-Keel/Klamath-River-Renewal-Project-Molecular-Library] and permanent data hosting repository services are provided by DRYAD: [DOI: 10.5061/dryad.0cfxpnwcn]. This repository contains metadata associated with molecular library samples and sampling locations, complete code for data visualization and analysis, photos, figures, and raw sequence read data ensuring transparency and reproducibility of the study. Sequencing data generated in this study have been deposited in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA1236377. Additionally, supplemental materials outlining additional statistical and molecular methods, as well as considerations for the governance of the molecular library are provided therein. Competing Interests Statement DK and DC are employed by the restoration contractor for the Klamath River Renewal Project (Lower Klamath Project). Ongoing Lower Klamath Project restoration actions and performance monitoring are expected over the next six years and have facilitated the initial establishment of the molecular library. References Lynch, A. J. et al. People need freshwater biodiversity. WIREs Water . 10 , e1633 (2023). Dudgeon, D. et al. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. 81 , 163 (2006). Jelks, H. L. et al. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33 , 372–407 (2008). Reid, A. J. et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94 , 849–873 (2019). Vörösmarty, C. J. et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467 , 555–561 (2010). Tickner, D. et al. Bending the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss – an emergency recovery plan. BioScience 70 , 330–342 (2020). Maasri, A. et al. A global agenda for advancing freshwater biodiversity research. Ecol. Lett. 25 , 255–263 (2022). Arthington, A. H. et al. Accelerating environmental flow implementation to bend the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss. Environ. Rev. 32 , 387–413 (2023). Birnie-Gauvin, K. et al. The RACE for freshwater biodiversity: Essential actions to create the social context for meaningful conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 5 , e12911 (2023). Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355 , eaai9214 (2017). Poff, N. L. et al. The natural flow regime. BioScience 47 , 769–784 (1997). Beechie, T. J. et al. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience 60 , 209–222 (2010). Silva, A. T. et al. The future of fish passage science, engineering, and practice. Fish. Fish. 19 , 340–362 (2018). Thieme, M. et al. Measures to safeguard and restore river connectivity. Environ. Rev. 32 , 366–386 (2024). O’Connor, J. E., Duda, J. J. & Grant, G. E. 1000 dams down and counting. Science 348 , 496–497 (2015). Magilligan, F. J. et al. River restoration by dam removal: Enhancing connectivity at watershed scales. Elem. Sci. Anthr . 4 , 000108 (2016). Duda, J. J. & Bellmore, J. R. Dam removal and river restoration. in Encyclopedia of Inland Waters 576–585Elsevier, (2022). Bellmore, J. R. et al. Status and trends of dam removal research in the United States. WIREs Water . 4 , e1164 (2017). McCaffery, R., Duda, J. J., Soissons, L., Roussel, J. M. & Editorial Large-scale dam removal and ecosystem restoration. Front. Ecol. Evol. 12 , 1471146 (2024). Riva, F. et al. Toward a cohesive understanding of ecological complexity. Sci. Adv. 9 , eabq4207 (2023). Sparrow, B. D. et al. Effective ecosystem monitoring requires a multi-scaled approach. Biol. Rev. 95 , 1706–1719 (2020). Cavender-Bares, J. et al. Integrating remote sensing with ecology and evolution to advance biodiversity conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6 , 506–519 (2022). Bernatchez, L., Ferchaud, A. L., Berger, C. S., Venney, C. J. & Xuereb, A. Genomics for monitoring and understanding species responses to global climate change. Nat. Rev. Genet. 25 , 165–183 (2024). Nicholson, E. et al. Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5 , 1338–1349 (2021). Clark, D. R. et al. Streams of data from drops of water: 21st century molecular microbial ecology. WIREs Water 5 , (2018). Levi, T. et al. Environmental DNA for the enumeration and management of Pacific salmon. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19 , 597–608 (2019). Miyata, K. et al. Comparative environmental RNA and DNA metabarcoding analysis of river algae and arthropods for ecological surveys and water quality assessment. Sci. Rep. 12 , 19828 (2022). Carraro, L., Blackman, R. C. & Altermatt, F. Modelling environmental DNA transport in rivers reveals highly resolved spatio-temporal biodiversity patterns. Sci. Rep. 13 , 8854 (2023). Evans, N. T., Shirey, P. D., Wieringa, J. G., Mahon, A. R. & Lamberti, G. A. Comparative Cost and Effort of Fish Distribution Detection via Environmental DNA Analysis and Electrofishing. Fisheries 42 , 90–99 (2017). Goldberg, C. S. et al. Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7 , 1299–1307 (2016). Sutter, M. & Kinziger, A. P. Rangewide tidewater goby occupancy survey using environmental DNA. Conserv. Genet. 20 , 597–613 (2019). Miya, M. & Environmental DNA metabarcoding: A novel method for biodiversity monitoring of marine fish communities. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 14 , 161–185 (2022). Adams, A. J. et al. From eDNA to decisions using a multi-method approach to restoration planning in streams. Sci. Rep. 14 , 14335 (2024). Dyson, K. et al. Coupling remote sensing and eDNA to monitor environmental impact: A pilot to quantify the environmental benefits of sustainable agriculture in the Brazilian Amazon. PLOS ONE . 19 , e0289437 (2024). Duda, J. J. et al. Environmental DNA is an effective tool to track recolonizing migratory fish following large-scale dam removal. Environ. DNA . 3 , 121–141 (2021). Muha, T. P., Rodriguez-Barreto, D., O’Rorke, R., De Leaniz, G., Consuegra, S. & C. & Using eDNA metabarcoding to monitor changes in fish community composition after barrier removal. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9 , 629217 (2021). Huang, C. S. et al. Early detection and recovery of river herring spawning habitat use in response to a mainstem dam removal. PLOS ONE . 18 , e0284561 (2023). Neufeld, J. D. Migrating SSU rRNA gene surveys to the metagenomics era. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 9 , 23–24 (2017). Trench-Fiol, S. & Fink, P. Metatranscriptomics from a small aquatic system: Microeukaryotic community functions through the diurnal cycle. Front. Microbiol. 11 , 1006 (2020). Küster, A., Becker, P. R., Kucklick, J. R., Pugh, R. S. & Koschorreck, J. The international environmental specimen banks—let’s get visible. Environ. Sci. Pollut Res. 22 , 1559–1561 (2015). Díaz, C. et al. Aquatic suspended particulate matter as source of eDNA for fish metabarcoding. Sci. Rep. 10 , 14352 (2020). Krehenwinkel, H. et al. Environmental DNA from archived leaves reveals widespread temporal turnover and biotic homogenization in forest arthropod communities. eLife 11 , e78521 (2022). Sullivan, A. R., Karlsson, E., Svensson, D. & Brindefalk, B. Airborne eDNA captures three decades of ecosystem biodiversity. bioRxiv. (2023). Zizka, V. M. A., Koschorreck, J., Khan, C. C. & Astrin, J. J. Long-term archival of environmental samples empowers biodiversity monitoring and ecological research. Environ. Sci. Eur. 34 , 40 (2022). Dysthe, J. C. et al. Repurposing environmental DNA samples—detecting the western pearlshell ( Margaritifera falcata ) as a proof of concept. Ecol. Evol. 8 , 2659–2670 (2018). Jarman, S. N., Berry, O. & Bunce, M. The value of environmental DNA biobanking for long-term biomonitoring. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2 , 1192–1193 (2018). Auer, H. et al. The effects of frozen tissue storage conditions on the integrity of RNA and protein. Biotech. Histochem. 89 , 518–528 (2014). Coudy, D., Colotte, M., Luis, A., Tuffet, S. & Bonnet, J. Long term conservation of DNA at ambient temperature. Implications for DNA data storage. PLOS ONE . 16 , e0259868 (2021). U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin Area Office, Mid Pacific Region. Final biological assessment, the effects of the proposed action to operate the Klamath Project from April 1,. through March 31, 2023 on federally-listed threatened and endangered species . (2012). (2012). (2013). Anderson, M. K. & Lake, F. K. California Indian ethnomycology and associated forest management. J. Ethnobiol. 33 , 33–85 (2013). Lake, F. K. et al. Returning fire to the land: celebrating traditional knowledge and fire. J. For. 115 , 343–353 (2017). Marks-Block, T., Lake, F. K. & Curran, L. M. Effects of understory fire management treatments on California Hazelnut, an ecocultural resource of the Karuk and Yurok Indians in the Pacific Northwest. Ecol. Manag . 450 , 117517 (2019). England, J. et al. Best practices for monitoring and assessing the ecological response to river restoration. Water 13 , 3352 (2021). Lindenmayer, D. B. & Likens, G. E. The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 143 , 1317–1328 (2010). Hart, D. D. et al. Dam Removal: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecological Research and River Restoration. BioScience 52 , 669 (2002). Doyle, M. W. et al. Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: Lessons from the Heartland. Geomorphology 71 , 227–244 (2005). Foley, M. M. et al. Dam removal: Listening in. Water Resour. Res. 53 , 5229–5246 (2017). Jo, T. & Yamanaka, H. Meta-analyses of environmental DNA downstream transport and deposition in relation to hydrogeography in riverine environments. Freshw. Biol. 67 , 1333–1343 (2022). Bellmore, J. R. et al. Conceptualizing ecological responses to dam removal: If you remove it, what’s to come? BioScience 69, 26–39 (2019). Palmer, M. A. et al. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 42 , 208–217 (2005). Curtis, A. N., Tiemann, J. S., Douglass, S. A., Davis, M. A. & Larson, E. R. High stream flows dilute environmental DNA (eDNA) concentrations and reduce detectability. Divers. Distrib. 27 , 1918–1931 (2021). Thompson, N. F. et al. A complex phenotype in salmon controlled by a simple change in migratory timing. Science 370 , 609–613 (2020). Hamilton, J. B., Curtis, G. L., Snedaker, S. M. & White, D. K. Distribution of anadromous fishes in the Upper Klamath River Watershed prior to hydropower dams—a synthesis of the historical evidence. Fisheries 30 , 10–20 (2005). Sutton, R. & Soto, T. Juvenile coho salmon behavioral characteristics in Klamath River summer thermal refugia. River Res. Appl. 28 , 338–346 (2012). Miya, M. et al. Use of a filter cartridge for filtration of water samples and extraction of environmental DNA. J Vis. Exp. JoVE (2016). Miya, M. et al. MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. R Soc. Open. Sci. 2 , 150088 (2015). O’Donnell, J. L., Kelly, R. P., Lowell, N. C. & Port, J. A. Indexed PCR primers induce template-specific bias in large-scale DNA sequencing studies. PLOS ONE . 11 , e0148698 (2016). Porter, T. M., Hajibabaei, M. & MetaWorks A flexible, scalable bioinformatic pipeline for high-throughput multi-marker biodiversity assessments. PLOS ONE . 17 , e0274260 (2022). Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215 , 403–410 (1990). Carraro, L., Mächler, E., Wüthrich, R. & Altermatt, F. Environmental DNA allows upscaling spatial patterns of biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 11 , 3585 (2020). Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.2-1. 2. 1–2. (2018). R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. (2024). Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer New York, 2009). Pollock, H. S. et al. Long-term monitoring reveals widespread and severe declines of understory birds in a protected Neotropical forest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2108731119 (2022). Lindgren, F., Rue, H. & Lindström, J. An explicit link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian Markov random fields: The stochastic partial differential equation approach: link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian Markov random fields. J. R Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 73 , 423–498 (2011). Zimmerman, D. L. & Ver Hoef, J. M. The Torgegram for fluvial variography: Characterizing spatial dependence on stream networks. J. Comput. Graph Stat. 26 , 253–264 (2017). Rue, H., Martino, S. & Chopin, N. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. J. R Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 71 , 319–392 (2009). Lindgren, F. & Rue, H. Bayesian spatial modelling with R - INLA. J Stat. Softw 63 , (2015). Robin, X. et al. pROC: An open-source package for R and S + to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinform. 12 , 77 (2011). NRC (National Research Council). Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Causes of Decline and Strategies for Recovery 10838 (National Academies, 2004). Carraro, L., Hartikainen, H., Jokela, J., Bertuzzo, E. & Rinaldo, A. Estimating species distribution and abundance in river networks using environmental DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 11724–11729 (2018). Winkowski, J. J., Olden, J. D. & Brown, S. Integrating spatial stream network models and environmental DNA to estimate current and future distributions of nonnative Smallmouth Bass. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 153 , 180–199 (2024). Ver Hoef, J. M., Peterson, E. E., Clifford, D. & Shah, R. SSN : An R Package for Spatial Statistical Modeling on Stream Networks. J Stat. Softw 56 , (2014). Struthers, D. P. et al. Statistical stream temperature modelling with SSN and INLA: an introduction for conservation practitioners. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 81 , 417–432 (2024). Rodriguez-Ezpeleta, N. et al. Trade‐offs between reducing complex terminology and producing accurate interpretations from environmental DNA: Comment on Environmental DNA: What’s behind the term? by Pawlowski et al., Mol. Ecol. 30, 4601–4605 (2021). (2020). Deiner, K. & Altermatt, F. Transport Distance of Invertebrate Environmental DNA in a Natural River. PLoS ONE . 9 , e88786 (2014). Pess, G. R., Quinn, T. P., Gephard, S. R. & Saunders, R. Re-colonization of Atlantic and Pacific rivers by anadromous fishes: linkages between life history and the benefits of barrier removal. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 24 , 881–900 (2014). Waldman, J. R. & Quinn, T. P. North American diadromous fishes: Drivers of decline and potential for recovery in the Anthropocene. Sci. Adv. 8 , eabl5486 (2022). Munsch, S. H. et al. Dam removal enables diverse juvenile life histories to emerge in threatened salmonids repopulating a heterogeneous landscape. Front. Ecol. Evol. 11 , 1188921 (2023). Fraik, A. K. et al. The impacts of dam construction and removal on the genetics of recovering steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) populations across the Elwha River Watershed. Genes 12 , 89 (2021). Goodwin, S., McPherson, J. D. & McCombie, W. R. Coming of age: ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17 , 333–351 (2016). Parker, K. A., Hess, J. E., Narum, S. R. & Kinziger, A. P. Evidence for the genetic basis and epistatic interactions underlying ocean- and river‐maturing ecotypes of Pacific Lamprey ( Entosphenus tridentatus ) returning to the Klamath River, California. Mol. Ecol. mec.15136 (2019). Zydlewski, J. et al. Seven dam challenges for migratory fish: Insights from the Penobscot River. Front. Ecol. Evol. 11 , 1253657 (2023). Hitt, N. P., Eyler, S. & Wofford, J. E. B. Dam removal increases American eel abundance in distant headwater streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 141 , 1171–1179 (2012). Leigh, D. M. et al. Best practices for genetic and genomic data archiving. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8 , 1224–1232 (2024). Nicholson, A. et al. An analysis of metadata reporting in freshwater environmental DNA research calls for the development of best practice guidelines. Environ. DNA . 2 , 343–349 (2020). Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data . 3 , 160018 (2016). Bergström, A. Improving data archiving practices in ancient genomics. Sci. Data . 11 , 754 (2024). ISBER Best Practices: Recommendations for Repositories . (International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories, (2023). Babel, M. et al. Compared DNA and RNA quality of breast cancer biobanking samples after long-term storage protocols in – 80°C and liquid nitrogen. Sci. Rep. 10 , 14404 (2020). Additional Declarations Competing interest reported. DK and DC are employed by the restoration contractor for the Klamath River Renewal Project (Lower Klamath Project). Ongoing Lower Klamath Project restoration actions and performance monitoring are expected over the next six years and have facilitated the initial establishment of the molecular library. All other authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files KRRPMolecularLibrarySupplementaryInformationREVISED.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 01 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 24 Apr, 2025 Reviews received at journal 23 Apr, 2025 Reviews received at journal 11 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Apr, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 01 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 22 Mar, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5575262","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":437407201,"identity":"5c23d52c-7c35-4ec8-b68c-f019789178a4","order_by":0,"name":"Dylan J. Keel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Resource Environmental Solutions LLC.","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dylan","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Keel","suffix":""},{"id":437407202,"identity":"bd93e64e-e9fe-418c-9d8e-8c259784692c","order_by":1,"name":"Katie Karpenko","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Cramer Fish Sciences (United States)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Katie","middleName":"","lastName":"Karpenko","suffix":""},{"id":437407203,"identity":"4d989633-ef29-4750-b1fb-e5e81404f62b","order_by":2,"name":"Scott M. Blankenship","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Cramer Fish Sciences (United States)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Scott","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Blankenship","suffix":""},{"id":437407204,"identity":"825c3a56-dc1a-4f8f-978a-a5ae23fbc70f","order_by":3,"name":"Gregg Schumer","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Cramer Fish Sciences (United States)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gregg","middleName":"","lastName":"Schumer","suffix":""},{"id":437407205,"identity":"ac233bed-952c-498e-90a6-d7bf62253cf4","order_by":4,"name":"Oshun O’Rourke","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yurok Tribal Fisheries Department","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Oshun","middleName":"","lastName":"O’Rourke","suffix":""},{"id":437407206,"identity":"62afefa3-3631-4333-958d-2f13fde996ab","order_by":5,"name":"Carl O. Ostberg","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"U.S. Geological Survey","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carl","middleName":"O.","lastName":"Ostberg","suffix":""},{"id":437407207,"identity":"2453e394-454e-4173-bd07-ae668bcb2bfe","order_by":6,"name":"Daniel A. Chase","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Resource Environmental Solutions LLC.","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Daniel","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Chase","suffix":""},{"id":437407208,"identity":"5f63acd9-0206-4b87-a562-4ccadffe9250","order_by":7,"name":"Jeffrey J. Duda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"U.S. Geological Survey","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jeffrey","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Duda","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-12-03 23:23:08","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575262/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575262/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07042-1","type":"published","date":"2025-07-01T15:58:28+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":79827225,"identity":"8c0e310d-eea0-4111-ae41-7418d83baa3e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:45:20","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5893133,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of the Klamath River Renewal Project (Lower Klamath Project) and molecular library monitoring sites, including geographic location of the Klamath River Basin, the project area including dams removed in 2024, and the Scott River reference sites (upper left), the distribution of the reference sites (upper right), and the mainstem, tributary, and control sites in relation to the reservoir footprints (lower).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1revised.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5575262/v1/d1f4b9eabc0f2a1447b4e93d.png"},{"id":79824659,"identity":"1b9bf4f0-1986-4689-a28f-ae336ebb4db4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:21:20","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2262489,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eImages of before and after dam removal on the Klamath River. (A1) Upstream view of the Iron Gate Reservoir below Fall Creek, prior to the start of reservoir drawdown and dam removal, beginning of January 2024 (Photo credit: Resource Environmental Solutions (RES)). (A2) Same location as A1, now an upstream view of the Klamath River below Fall Creek, taken within the former Iron Gate Reservoir footprint, May 2024 (Photo credit: RES). (B1) Drone image of the Copco 1 Dam, completed in 1918, along the Klamath River during pre-dam removal activities in September 2023 (Photo credit: RES). (B2) Drone image of the Klamath River at the former Copco 1 Dam site following the completion of dam removal activities in October 2024 (Photo credit: RES).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5575262/v1/caf1d3c4d95e00e11658b9bf.png"},{"id":79825860,"identity":"9fcfd794-b067-4dca-8ec6-393ce24dc456","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:29:20","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":474667,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDiagram showing (A) water sample collection and filtration protocol with potential analyses and inference possible over the life of the molecular library eNA archive (including a proportion of samples preserved for eDNA analysis pathways symbolized by the double helix icon and a proportion of samples preserved for eRNA analysis pathways symbolized by the single stranded icon), (B) the proposed sampling timeframe and data purpose over timescales relevant to management and research and as a time capsule, to capture ecosystem responses to dam removal, and (C) status of requisite steps for the establishment of molecular library as an environmental specimen bank, including \u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003ethose completed at time of publication and \u003csup\u003e2 \u003c/sup\u003ethose identified as potential future activities.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5575262/v1/9cf0fe686e4748084d597f96.png"},{"id":79826384,"identity":"4c5b87df-3a50-42c4-8bdb-a38a1fd7fdd6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:37:20","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":243877,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNon-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot visualizing site-level species composition based on a Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrix from rarefied sequence reads. Significant species vectors (p ≤ 0.001) are overlaid to highlight species-ordination relationships (common names), with sites grouped by habitat type (stream vs. reservoir) and 95% confidence ellipses displayed. Corresponding scientific names available in Supplementary Information: Supplemental Table 1 – Metabarcoding Species Data.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4revised.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5575262/v1/2aebbd4bd0438e4b1e9fbe62.png"},{"id":79825858,"identity":"87e00cf1-670e-4a48-a6fc-15c2ec84375c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:29:20","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":291619,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFour-panel figure illustrating model results for native fish diversity and richness across habitats. (A) Forest plot showing the effects of habitat type (reservoir vs. stream), stream size (mainstem vs. tributary), control vs. impact, reference vs. impact, scaled dissolved oxygen (mg/L), and scaled specific conductance (µS/cm) on the odds of non-extreme low native fish diversity (error bars represent 95% credible intervals). (B) Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve displaying the area under the curve (AUC) fit (0.91) for the diversity model, indicating a high true positive rate. (C) Forest plot of covariate effects on native species richness rate ratios with 95% credible intervals. (D) Scatter plot of fitted vs. observed values, showing model accuracy in predicting native species richness across sites (R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=0.64).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5revised.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5575262/v1/2075827f15d2cb497fbe6987.png"},{"id":79824669,"identity":"f57f9012-61e0-4bfa-b74a-57905c2fdeee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:21:20","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":405505,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHeat map of the quantity of flow-corrected DNA sequences detected per taxon at each sampling location (blue), native species Shannon-Weiner diversity index (green), and native species richness (grey). Darker colors indicate larger values. The plot panels are split vertically with “Reservoir” locations on the left and “Stream” locations on the right, and “Exotic” taxa detected in the top half and “Native” taxa on the bottom half. Sampling locations are plotted downstream to upstream within their respective panels. Scientific names provided in Supplemental Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5575262/v1/7aa2b286da6b8442acedce61.png"},{"id":86179195,"identity":"3c982a46-1584-46b8-9652-f7049f9f848a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-07 16:17:04","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":10347463,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5575262/v1/4c3b9277-609e-4b03-8c1d-7ed19119ff50.pdf"},{"id":79824670,"identity":"0769ec07-b889-4c02-a5f4-00f92b93f18d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 09:21:20","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":196695,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"KRRPMolecularLibrarySupplementaryInformationREVISED.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5575262/v1/432eba53b6a94e3aeab2c2f8.docx"}],"financialInterests":"Competing interest reported. DK and DC are employed by the restoration contractor for the Klamath River Renewal Project (Lower Klamath Project). Ongoing Lower Klamath Project restoration actions and performance monitoring are expected over the next six years and have facilitated the initial establishment of the molecular library. All other authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"A molecular specimen bank for contemporary and future study captures landscape-scale biodiversity baselines before Klamath River dam removal ","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFreshwater habitats are vital for human and ecosystem wellbeing\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Lotic and lentic habitats support economic, recreational, and cultural services, while being home to much larger levels of endemism, fish species richness, and biodiversity than their spatial footprint alone would suggest\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. For millennia, human dependence on river ecosystems has created cumulative impacts that have become larger, more widespread, and difficult to manage. This has contributed to a global increase in species extinctions, decline in freshwater species abundance, and a loss of biodiversity and ecosystem function \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. A rising awareness of the threats and peril to rivers and the human populations served by these ecosystems has emerged\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and led to calls for management plans addressing restoration and recovery of freshwater ecosystems \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR8 CR9\" citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These discussions about the conservation and restoration of freshwater biodiversity often recommend measures to maintain or restore river connectivity and the associated ecological processes and functions (e.g., natural flow, sediment, and temperature regimes) contained in free-flowing rivers\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR12 CR13\" citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Over the past two decades, dam removal has been increasingly used as a tool to restore river connectivity, while also removing obsolete, unsafe, or inconsequential structures no longer meeting their intended purpose\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR16\" citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Although most dam removal outcomes are unstudied\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, the number and diversity of studies addressing the physical and biological outcomes is increasing\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Yet, there remains ample space to explore new approaches and emerging technologies to address the outcomes from dam removal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcosystems are inherently complex, with multiple interacting species, processes, and environmental factors\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, baseline conditions may shift over time due to natural variability or human influence, making it difficult to interpret monitoring metrics or determine progress towards recovery goals. Ecosystem changes occur over various temporal scales, from short-term fluctuations to long-term trends. Spatial heterogeneity within and among ecosystems may also influence how monitoring metrics change\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The methods used to assess ecosystem recovery, such as remote sensing, field surveys, and genetic analyses, each have limitations. These might include resolution constraints, scale limitations, and detection limits\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Combining multiple methods often provides a more comprehensive view needed for evaluation, but integrating different types of data or consolidating different data systems introduces challenges. The type of monitoring conducted must capture the appropriate scales required for program objectives, including where and when changes are occurring, what is changing, and what is causing change. Identifying appropriate indicators to measure that are informative about ecosystem status and recovery is challenging. Indicators must be sensitive to change, relevant across different scales, and robust to natural variability. Further, a combination of biotic and abiotic indicators is needed, each having specialized requirements for measurement and interpretation\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvances in quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) have enabled researchers to ask broad and targeted ecological questions using environmental DNA (eDNA) and environmental RNA (eRNA)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR26 CR27\" citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Environmental DNA and eRNA, collectively referred to as environmental nucleic acids (eNA), are cost effective\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, non-invasive\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, and effective tools for monitoring the distribution of aquatic species at broad geographic scales \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Increasingly, molecular tools including eNA have been used to document broadscale changes to biodiversity after restoration including landscape-scale species reestablishment programs\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, stream restoration, changes to land use and watershed management\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, and following large-scale dam removals\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR36\" citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, the rapid evolution of NGS tools including environmental metagenomics (the collection of genomes in an environmental sample) and environmental metatranscriptomics (the collection of gene transcripts in an environmental sample) presents opportunities to assess community level changes to genetic diversity and gene expression following restoration, particularly with microorganisms\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental specimen banks are programs that curate physical storage of environmental samples through time for future monitoring and research. Although most focus on preserving samples for the analysis of environmental contaminants, chemical trends, human and animal tissues, plant tissues, and environmental samples, molecular focused environmental specimen banks present an opportunity to assess long-term changes in biodiversity from preserved genetic material\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Recently, existing environmental samples stored in environmental specimen banks have been opportunistically utilized to measure changes in biodiversity through time with eNA\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR42\" citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, but challenges remain regarding the ability of regional environmental specimen banks to capture and preserve eNA with sufficient resolution to assess restoration projects\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR45\" citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. It has been shown that cryopreservation of both DNA and RNA in liquid nitrogen successfully preserves and maintains the integrity of nucleic acids over decades. One study reported that RNA isolated from breast cancer samples stored for a minimum of 10 years in the vapor phase of liquid nitrogen exhibited significantly higher RNA Integrity Number equivalent (RINe) values compared to those stored at \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;80\u0026deg;C, indicating superior preservation of RNA quality with liquid nitrogen storage\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Although preserved environmental samples can retain usable genetic material for decades, extracted and purified DNA and RNA can retain sufficient quantity and quality for much longer, possibly up to tens of thousands of years\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Klamath River Renewal Project (KRRP; also called Lower Klamath Project) is the largest dam removal and river restoration in the history of the United States and represents a unique opportunity to study landscape-scale change. Extending across northern California and southern Oregon, the project includes the removal of four hydroelectric dams and their associated infrastructure along the Klamath River (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Dam removal and subsequent restoration of the former reservoir footprints to a riverine condition is intended to reconnect over 640 km of habitat for anadromous and migratory fishes, restore native vegetation across over 800 ha of previously drowned land, and improve water quality and habitat conditions within the 305 km of mainstem river downstream from the dams\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Dam removal was completed\u0026mdash;with volitional fish passage restored in fall 2024 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) \u0026mdash; with anticipated fisheries and ecosystem function benefitting local communities, including members of the Indigenous Tribes who have relied on a healthy and well managed Klamath River since time immemorial\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR51\" citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the expected benefits of dam removal, there are few long-term studies that have demonstrated population level responses in fish. The scale and importance of the KRRP presents a unique opportunity to address the long-term outcomes of dam removal on fish population response and the processes involved in ecosystem recovery. We created the Molecular Library (ML) as an environmental specimen bank specifically to preserve eNA as a data legacy for long-term assessment of dam removal outcomes and associated reestablishment of native species along the Klamath River, as well as the global effort to understand biodiversity response to landscape-scale restoration. The ML is a novel approach: to develop an environmental specimen bank that combines the best practices for evaluating biodiversity response to restoration through time\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and accounts for challenges faced by existing environmental specimen banks for the effective capture and preservation of eNA\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Our objectives were to: 1) introduce and document a framework for landscape-scale restoration research and monitoring with eNA that aims to apply best modern practices to create a molecular library of samples for the purpose of short-term use (contemporary analysis) and long-term use (archiving for posterity); and 2) demonstrate sample validation and baseline conditions (pre-dam removal) of fish communities across longitudinally placed sample sites upstream and downstream of the former dams, within reservoir reaches, and reference reaches in tributaries.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eSite Selection\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe established an initial experimental design anticipated to address both short- and long-term changes within 114 km of river and tributary areas impacted by the KRRP. A key aspect of the design was to ensure that sites would be accessible both physically (regardless of environmental conditions) and jurisdictionally via stable public lands\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Based on previous dam removal monitoring efforts\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR56\" citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, we expected significant short-term changes to the river ecosystem to be encompassed within the project area proximate to the four dams (i.e., spanning from just upstream of the J.C. Boyle uppermost reservoir to 3.5 km downstream of the lowermost Iron Gate Reservoir). As such, we systematically established 20 monitoring locations every 2 km along the Klamath River mainstem and reservoirs and 17 locations every 1 km along selected tributaries within the anadromous zone (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Scaled systematic distance between monitoring locations of 2 km and 1 km respectively were used to reduce the probability of extra-organismal eNA being transported between sites\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, we also recognize that flexibility of the design for future expansion of sampling locations may be necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes or related study questions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe also established two different types of comparison sites that were not directly impacted by dam removal. We selected two \u0026ldquo;control\u0026rdquo; sites upstream of anadromous barriers in tributaries of the study reach (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). These were intended to isolate the effects of dam removal (i.e., habitat transition from lentic to lotic, restoring natural flow, sediment, and temperature regimes, and upstream passage of aquatic organisms\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e) from localized natural variability. Yet, tributary sites upstream of barriers tend to be smaller order watersheds that might not be representative of changes experienced within a larger system like the Klamath River. Thus, we added six additional \u0026ldquo;reference\u0026rdquo; sites in the Scott River basin, a large tributary downstream of the project area. Having a range of non-treatment reaches from which to compare treatment (i.e., dam removal) effects will be more representative of recovered conditions and biological communities\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. We monumented all sites with GPS location, documented each site with photographs, and stored site level information in ArcGIS online for coordination between field teams and long-term data integrity and storage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eField Sampling\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe collected 405 samples from 44 monitoring locations on 17\u0026ndash;20 July, 2023. The summer season from July through August is the preferred time to complete annual sampling due to lower stream discharge that minimizes the dilution of eNA in streams\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, increasing the probability of detecting key indicator species including bacteria, algae, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, fishes, and pathogens. The sampling window also overlaps with the juvenile life-stage of native migratory fishes within the watershed, increasing the likelihood that eDNA is captured from this life stage specifically\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR63\" citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Access allowing, we collected three liters of stream water from each bank and the center of the channel at each site, for a total of nine liters. The nine liters of water were combined into a single vessel, agitated to encourage homogenization, and decanted into nine replicate samples via a filtering manifold. Each replicate was filtered in the field through 0.45 \u0026micro;m pore-size PVDF Sterivex filters (MilliporeSigma, Burlington, MA, USA; cat #SVHVL10RC), which capture eNA from the environment by trapping particles within the filter matrix, using Masterflex Easy-Load II peristaltic pumps (VWR, Radnor, PA, USA; cat #MFLX77200-52) and sterile Masterflex tubing (VWR, Radnor, PA, USA; cat# MFLX-06509-24) for each monitoring site. Pumps were affixed in parallel to allow for simultaneous filtration of three filter replicates and powered using a brushless, cordless drill with a 12.7 mm spade bit attachment. Field crews followed protocols to assess and minimize the risk of contamination including using sterile single-use filters, caps and tubing, changing nitrile gloves frequently, and collecting field controls at the start of each sampling day (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Site-level water quality measurements (water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance) were collected with a Multiparameter Digital Water Quality Meter (Yellow Springs Instruments, Ohio, USA; model #626870-1) and air temperature with a rotating-vane thermistor (KESTREL 3000 \u0026ndash; Wind Meter, USA, model #0830). When field sampling was complete, samples were preserved by pipetting into each filter cartridge1.5 mL of RNAprotect Tissue Reagent (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany; cat #76106) following practices to maximize the probability of stabilizing genetic material\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Samples were then stored in a portable cooler with blue ice packs before being transferred to a non-frost-free freezer and stored at \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20\u0026deg;C.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMolecular Methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal DNA was isolated from selected filters and purified to remove non-target cellular and environmental contaminants using the QIAamp DNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany; cat #51306) and following a standard protocol with modifications \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. First, RNAprotect Tissue Reagent was evacuated from each filter by manually shaking the liquid from the cartridge. The exterior of each filter was sterilized with a PCR clean wipe (Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ, USA; cat #C791Q58) to avoid cross contamination. We added 440 \u0026micro;L of the Buffer PBS/Buffer AL/Proteinase K lysis solution\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e to each filter by injecting the solution into the Sterivex cartridge using a filtered pipette tip. The filters were incubated for 5 min at 56\u0026deg;C, then affixed to a Vortex-Genie 2 mixer (Scientific Industries, Bohemia, NY, USA; cat #SI0236) to undergo two ten-minute room temperature vortex sessions. Between sessions, the filters were rotated 180\u0026deg; to ensure full coverage of the filter membrane. The solution was transferred from the Sterivex cartridge to a 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube, and then QIAamp mini spin columns were used to bind DNA, and the remainder of the DNA purification and elution steps followed the published protocol\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. DNA extraction controls, created by adding 880 \u0026micro;L of the lysis solution to a sterile Sterivex filter, were processed in parallel with samples to confirm sample integrity throughout the extraction procedure. All samples and controls were passed through the Zymo OneStep PCR Inhibitor Removal Kit (Zymo Research, Irvine, California, USA; cat #D6030) following manufacturers guidelines. DNA extraction was completed in a separate pre-PCR space using sterilized surfaces and equipment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePurified eNA can be analyzed using a variety of molecular techniques. For this study, we used DNA metabarcoding to assess the community-level composition of fish taxa at each sampling location. Metabarcoding employs next-generation sequencing with universal primers to sequence a diagnostic region of DNA that allows for species identification across taxa. We used a multiplex of the MiFish-U primer set\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and a modified version of the MiFish-U-F primer (GIQHerp-F), designed to enhance detection of herptile taxa, to sequence a 170 bp region of vertebrate 12S rRNA mitochondrial genome using three-step PCR approach adapted from previously published library preparation methodologies\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The initial PCR was completed using non-indexed primers to enrich subsequent reactions for target DNA. Each sample was amplified in triplicate, in a total reaction volume of 10 \u0026micro;l containing 4 \u0026micro;l extracted eDNA, 0.4 \u0026micro;M of each forward primer (MiFish-U-F: 5\u0026rsquo;- GTCGGTAAAACTCGTGCCAGC-3\u0026rsquo;, GIQHerp-F: 5\u0026rsquo;- GCCGGCTAATCTGGTGCCAGC-3\u0026rsquo;), 0.8 \u0026micro;M MiFish-U-R (5\u0026rsquo;- CATAGTGGGGTATCTAATCCCAGTTTG-3\u0026rsquo;), and 1X Qiagen Plus Multiplex Master Mix (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany; cat #206145). Cycling began with an initial denaturation at 95\u0026deg;C for 5 min, followed by 35 cycles of 95\u0026deg;C for 15 seconds, 5% ramp down to 55\u0026deg;C for 30 seconds, and 72\u0026deg;C for 30 seconds. The triplicate PCR products were pooled then diluted 1:10 prior to starting the Illumina adapter and barcoding processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Illumina hanging tail adapters were incorporated using the MiFish-U and GIQHerp primer multiplex containing the 33 or 34 bp 5\u0026rsquo; Illumina hanging tail adaptor sequences to provide a priming site for the addition of dual indexed barcode sequences. Each reaction consisted of a 12 \u0026micro;l total volume containing 2 \u0026micro;l pooled and diluted product from the previous PCR, 0.3 \u0026micro;M of each Illumina adapter forward primer, 0.6 \u0026micro;M of the Illumina adapter reverse primer, and 6 \u0026micro;l KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN; cat #07958935001). The cycling profile was as follows: 95\u0026deg;C for 5 min, 5 cycles of 98\u0026deg;C for 20 seconds, 1% ramp down to 65\u0026deg;C for 15 seconds, and 72\u0026deg;C for 15 seconds, then 7 cycles of 98\u0026deg;C for 20 seconds, 5% ramp down to 65\u0026deg;C for 15 seconds, 72\u0026deg;C for 15 seconds. PCR products were diluted 1:10 and used as template in the final PCR step. The paired-end dual indices that allow for sample identification and de-multiplexing were incorporated during the final PCR step. Each PCR was completed in a total volume of 12 \u0026micro;l, composed of 0.3 \u0026micro;M of the forward and reverse index primers, 6 \u0026micro;l 1X KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix, and 1 \u0026micro;l of the diluted product from the previous PCR. Amplification started with 95\u0026deg;C for 3 min, followed by 10 cycles of 98\u0026deg;C for 20 seconds, 5% ramp down to 72\u0026deg;C for 15 seconds, and final extension 72\u0026deg;C for 5 min. All PCR steps were completed using BioRad C1000 Touch thermal cyclers (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA) in a designated PCR space.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEqual volumes of the indexed PCR products were pooled, then size selected (c. 370) using 2% gel electrophoresis and purified using QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany; cat #28704) following the manufacturers guidelines for next-generation sequencing. Purified libraries were quantified using the Qubit 4 fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA; cat #Q33226) and Qubit dsDNA HS assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA; cat # Q33231), and sequenced on the Illumina Miseq system (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) using the v2 300-cycle chemistry. The final loading concentration was 8 pM with a 10% PhiX spike-in added as a sequencing control. Using a UV sterilized hood, we prepared master mix for all PCR steps and added extracted DNA during the initial PCR. All intermediate dilution, DNA transfer, and final pooling steps were completed in designated post-PCR spaces using sterilized pipettes and bench tops. No template PCR controls were processed in parallel with samples and sequenced to confirm process integrity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo determine provisional species identification, the resultant sequencing data were compiled and processed using the MetaWorks pipeline, 12S vertebrate classifier, and default parameters\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The data output from this pipeline grouped identical sequences into zero-radius operational taxonomic units (ZOTUs) and provided a provisional species identification of each unique sequence using the selected classifier. We removed any ZOTUs with less than 100 sequence reads to screen out potential artifact sequences. The provisional taxonomic assignment was verified against the NIH National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) GenBank nr reference database (Accessed 20 Dec. 2024) using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). BLAST compares DNA nucleotide variation between sequences to calculate genetic similarity of input (detected) sequences to known voucher sequences. The BLAST output was further curated to determine the final species identification. ZOTUs were assigned to species when sequence identity was greater than or equal to 97% with 100% query coverage to a single species. ZOTUs that matched multiple species with the same percent ID and query coverage criteria were further evaluated for historical occurrence in the sampling region, and only species that could occur in the sampling region were assigned. If more than one species matched within the stated BLAST criteria and could co-occur in the sampling region, the ZOTU was assigned to the taxonomic level that appropriately captured all potential matches (e.g., \u003cem\u003eCottus\u003c/em\u003e spp.). ZOTUs that matched GenBank sequences with less than 95% identity were considered too dissimilar to be accurately identified and were removed from the analysis. Similarly, ZOTUs that did not produce any matches to GenBank were also screened out as unidentifiable. Any detections that could result from anthropogenic inputs (human, cat, dog, cow, chicken, and pig) were removed from analysis. Additionally, we removed detections of fish species that were anomalous for the sampling region and have been previously identified as contaminants. These species included common bleak (\u003cem\u003eAlburnus alburnus\u003c/em\u003e), common barbell (\u003cem\u003eBarbus barbus\u003c/em\u003e), common chub (\u003cem\u003eSqualius cephalus)\u003c/em\u003e, and ballyhoo (\u003cem\u003eHemiramphus brasiliensis\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical Methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe used sequence reads of fish taxa to visualize data and calculate diversity metrics for analysis. The average rarefied sequence read concentration per taxon across three site replicates was calculated based on the volume of water that was filtered (mL), the re-suspended volume of purified DNA from DNA extraction (\u0026micro;L), the volume of purified DNA added to the initial PCR (\u0026micro;L per reaction), and the sequence reads per taxon (reads per reaction). The flow-adjusted sequence read rate per \u003cem\u003emonitoring location\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e of \u003cem\u003etaxon\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ej\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003ereads per second\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ei,j\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e) was calculated whereby monitoring location specific discharge (\u003cem\u003eQ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e is estimated as a function of contributing drainage area of \u003cem\u003emonitoring location\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e, and \u003cem\u003ereads per second\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ei,j\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e is equal to the product of reads per mL \u003cem\u003etaxon\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ej\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e and mL per second (\u003cem\u003eQi\u003c/em\u003e)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Native fish diversity (diversity) was estimated per monitoring location by the Shannon-Wiener diversity index using R-package \u003cem\u003evegan\u003c/em\u003e based on relative abundance (\u003cem\u003ereads per second\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ei,j\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Native fish richness (richness) per monitoring location was calculated based on the total number of native fishes detected with greater than 100 sequence reads. Site-level species composition relationships were visualized via non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) using a Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrix generated from rarefied sequence reads. Species vectors based on significant correlations (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) with ordination axes were overlayed to highlight species contributing to group separation. All NMDS calculations were completed using the \u003cem\u003evegan\u003c/em\u003e R-package and visualized at the habitat scale (stream vs. reservoir) with 95% confidence ellipses using \u003cem\u003eggplot2\u003c/em\u003e R-package\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. We performed all statistical analyses in R\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationships between the covariates of habitat type (reservoir vs. stream), stream size (mainstem vs. tributary), control vs. impact, reference vs. impact, dissolved oxygen (mg per L), and specific conductance (\u0026micro;S per cm) and response variables were evaluated using generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs). Diversity was modeled as a binomial response, with extreme low diversity sites (Shannon-Wiener diversity index\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) and normal or high diversity sites (Shannon-Wiener diversity index\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Richness was modeled as a count. To identify properly specified models, a binomial GLMM (diversity), with a logit link function, and a Poisson GLMM (richness), with a log link function, were fit with a random effect for waterbody and the fixed effects described above. Additional explanatory variables were not considered to avoid multicollinearity which was examined with R-package Highland Statistics Ver. 10\u003csup\u003e73\u003c/sup\u003e. The Poisson GLMM was assessed for overdispersion via data simulation with the \u003cem\u003edispersion_check\u003c/em\u003e function in R-package \u003cem\u003einlatools\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Because no evidence of overdispersion was found, other probability density functions were not considered. Continuous explanatory variables were scaled to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe used spatial Pearson residuals of non-spatial GLMMs to construct semi-variograms to test for spatial autocorrelation\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Semi-variograms of Euclidean distance on the scale of 5,000 m between sites were assessed and the percentage of the residual variance associated with the spatial effect was quantified with the sill to nugget ratio\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The semi-variograms revealed evidence of spatial autocorrelation on the scale of ~\u0026thinsp;2,500 m for both models. To account for the residual spatial autocorrelation, the GLMMs were fitted with stochastic partial differential equations (SPDEs) to introduce Gaussian spatial random field effects. Models were fitted using the integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA), a method that uses a Bayesian framework and was implemented in R software\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additional information on model parameterization, INLA model fitting, diagnostics, and interpretation of the spatial random field can be found in the Supplemental Materials: Statistical Methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe determined model goodness of fit (GOF) via posterior predictive checks by comparing simulated and observed data and summarizing with a Bayesian P-value. The GOF of models was considered suitable if the Bayesian P-value was between 0.1 and 0.9. Additionally, predictive power of the properly specified binomial GLMM was assessed by calculating area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) to measure the model\u0026rsquo;s true positive rate (sensitivity) with R-package \u003cem\u003epROC\u003c/em\u003e, and the properly specified Poisson GLMM was assessed by calculating the percent of the variance explained by the model with pseudo-R\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e (R\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e79\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Because single global models were fitted for diversity and richness, only those parameters with 95% credible intervals (95% CI) that did not span zero were considered significant and suitable for inference.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe processed three replicated eDNA samples for each of the 44 monitoring locations across the study area in July 2023, placing the remaining six samples per site into the molecular library archive for future use. A total of 132 samples, 3 negative extraction controls, and 6 negative PCR controls were successfully sequenced. The metabarcoding methods and bioinformatic pipeline resulted in a total of 10,682,995 reads (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;71,697\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;50,949 reads/sample). The total number of reads per sample prior to filtering ranged from 30 to 255,711. Following removal of ZOTUs with less than 100 sequence reads, total read count decreased to 10,634,394 (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;77,060\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;48,536 reads/sample), with a range of 841 to 255,234 reads per sample. Taxonomic identification and subsequent removal of poor matches to GenBank and taxa from anthropogenic sources reduced read count to 10,184,373 total reads (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;75,439\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;46,830 reads/sample) with 780 to 254,903 reads/sample. Of the remaining sequences, 9,863,134 reads (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;76,458\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;45,364 reads/sample) were identified as originating from fish taxa, with a median number of reads per taxon, pooled over monitoring locations, of 5,844. We detected low levels of cross-sample contamination in some extraction controls and PCR controls (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;154 reads/sample). The extraction and PCR controls were free of contamination following the removal of ZOTUs with less than 100 reads. Common bleak, common barbell, and common chub were detected in 0.75% of samples and ballyhoo was detected in 9.8% of samples at greater than 100 reads. All environmental samples produced data that passed quality control. However, two of three samples collected at Scotch Creek did not contain fish detections and were therefore not included in subsequent analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe detected 8 native fish taxa and 13 exotic fish taxa across monitoring locations. In addition to fishes, we detected eDNA from 10 reptile and amphibian taxa, 12 bird taxa, and 14 mammal taxa (Supplemental Materials Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e-Metabarcoding Species Data). Shannon-Wiener diversity index of native fish species at monitoring locations ranged from 0 to 1.61 with a median value of 0.79. Native fish richness ranged from zero to eight taxa with a median value of four. Data visualization with NMDS revealed a grouping by habitat type (reservoir vs. stream), with all the reservoir monitoring locations falling within the reservoir 95% confidence ellipse, and all but four stream monitoring locations falling within the stream 95% confidence ellipse (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Significant species vectors included the native fishes: Catostomidae, speckled dace (\u003cem\u003eRhinichthys osculus\u003c/em\u003e), and rainbow trout/steelhead (\u003cem\u003eOncorhynchus mykiss\u003c/em\u003e), and the exotic fishes: goldfish (\u003cem\u003eCarassius aurataus)\u003c/em\u003e, yellow perch \u003cem\u003e(Perca flavescens\u003c/em\u003e), golden shiner \u003cem\u003e(Notemigonus crysoleucas\u003c/em\u003e), and black crappie (P\u003cem\u003eomoxis nigromaculatus\u003c/em\u003e) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). These results suggest that group differences along the first NMDS axis are largely driven by differences in native and exotic fish species presence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpected elements of the Klamath River Renewal Project Molecular Library that will define the management, operation, and governance structure. Each element of the table is derived from cited best practices documents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCitations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMetadata (see details in Supplemental Table\u0026nbsp;2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA description of all fields related to the eNA data, including specifics on study focus, site characteristics (e.g., coordinates, waterbody name, reach location), unique site identifiers, sample collection methods (e.g., sample depth, level of replication, and\u0026nbsp;molecular/eNA specific techniques (e.g., filter pore size, extraction protocol, preservation method). Metadata should be machine readable and published with a globally unique and persistent identifier (DOI).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e95\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e96\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lsquo;FAIR\u0026rsquo; Practices\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA methodology for ensuring whether data are FAIR: findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. In the context of the Klamath eNA library, this means that the accession numbers associated with individual studies, samples, and metadata are identifiable and interoperable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e97\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArchiving sequence reads\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo help users adhere to FAIR principles in data archiving, protocols and best practices for archiving sequence reads are imperative. These include standardized data formats, formal data archive management, and centralization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e98\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccess and data ownership protocols\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eData sharing policies and procedure for governing access, distribution and transfer of molecular library materials. Protocols would encourage streamlined access and encouragement for sharing with partners, while protecting the integrity of the molecular library samples. To include development of a material and data transfer agreement that outlines the description of the specimens and their intended use. Also provides data ownership guidelines and provision of feedback and metadata into the molecular library.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e99\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuidelines and best practices for future additions into the library\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA framework for repositing new samples into the library that includes procedures and requirements for data and metadata, sample tracking, and chain-of-custody.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e99\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaintenance and long-term storage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetermining maintenance and upkeep procedures for the facility (e.g., university museum, government research laboratory) that houses the long-term storage of the genetic library and minimum requirements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e100\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe GLMM modeling framework resulted in ecological models that assessed the relationship between the covariates of habitat type (reservoir vs. stream), stream size (mainstem river vs. tributary), control vs. impact, reference vs. impact, dissolved oxygen (mg per L), and specific conductance (\u0026micro;S per cm) and response variables (diversity and richness). The diversity model passed GOF and resulted in a true positive rate of 96.9% (AUC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.969). The binomial GLMM had three covariates that did not span zero: habitat type, stream size, control vs. impact, and reference vs. impact. The model suggests that after accounting for the random effects of waterbody and spatial position, the log-odds that reservoir locations will have extreme low native fish diversity is at least 7.71 times (95% Credible Interval(CI): 7.71\u0026ndash; 40.8 times) greater than the log-odds that stream locations will have extreme low native fish diversity. Additionally, the log-odds that mainstem sites had low native fish diversity was lower than that of tributary sites (95% CI: -35.4 \u0026ndash; -3.73), and that impact sites in the dam removal reach had low diversity was lower than the reference sites in the Scott River Watershed (95% CI: -22.6 \u0026ndash; -1.31) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe richness model passed GOF and described 71% of the variance in native fish taxa richness (R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.705) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). The model suggests that after accounting for the random effects of waterbody and spatial position, streams were expected to have 2.3\u0026ndash;10.7 (95% CI) times greater native fish richness than reservoirs. Additionally, tributaries were expected to have between 13.8 and 56.3% less (95% CI) native fish richness than mainstem river sites. Model validation plots, model formulas, and model fit summaries are available in the Supplemental Materials:-Statistical Methods.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe created the KRPP molecular library as a forward thinking, long-term data framework that can fill an important gap in understanding the outcomes of a large-scale dam removal and river restoration. The dam removal literature has a paucity of long-term data showing ecosystem outcomes and complexities of processes that generally have pronounced short-term effects (e.g., restoration of connectivity, transitioning of lotic to lentic conditions) followed by a long-term response\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The molecular library introduces a framework for landscape-scale restoration research and monitoring with eNA. By collecting eNA from the Klamath River and tributaries before dam removal and establishing a repeatable protocol for subsequent collection, preservation, and analysis, we created a baseline for managers and researchers to retrospectively query changes to the pre-impact condition. Additionally, we demonstrated the validity of this methodology for discerning patterns in landscape biodiversity by analyzing the effects of pre-dam removal habitat types on the native fish community. Although useful in the current context, we identified three requisite phases of development for the long-term maintenance and function of the molecular library as an eNA environmental specimen bank: 1) a physical facility for the long-term storage of extracted genetic material, 2) the establishment of a formalized governance structure to guide the ethical and equitable use of the finite genetic material, and 3) the identification of consistent support for archive management and the development and curation of a user-friendly, public-facing database of sequence reads.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUtility and design of the molecular library\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe molecular library currently consists of 44 monitoring locations, spanning approximately 114 km of the Klamath River and tributaries. The spatial scale used ensures that localized effects are captured alongside broader ecosystem changes. The envisioned multi-decade temporal scale can help distinguish between short-term responses and true recovery trends. Partitioning short- and longer-term effects would not be possible without establishing a stable long-term storage and archive for eNA, in addition to an eNA \u0026ldquo;time capsule\u0026rdquo; for posterity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe molecular library design incorporated monitoring reference and control sites that are unaffected by the dam removal but have similar ecological and environmental conditions. The reference sites will provide information on natural variability, helping to isolate the effects of dam removal from other environmental changes. In the baseline samples, we found evidence that the reference sites in the Scott River Watershed had weak to moderate odds of having lower native fish diversity than similar sites that will be impacted by dam removal. Additionally, we found evidence that tributaries had lower native fish diversity than mainstem Klamath River sites. These results highlight the importance of including pre-impact data and both reference and control sites as well as aquatic habitat strata (i.e., mainstem vs. tributary) when creating a baseline to assess recovery trends\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe molecular library will enable biological (e.g., community composition, relative abundance) and physical (e.g., sediment transport, water quality) metrics to be combined in the assessment. Integrated assessments are preferred, and have been planned for in the design, as integration provides a more holistic view of ecosystem recovery critical to understanding the full impact of dam removal. Additionally, the library has the capacity to support the use of ecological models to study outcomes of dam removal under various scenarios, with a short-term emphasis on biological responses. Supporting ecological models may help to study outcomes, guide adaptive management, and identify key uncertainties where additional data collection may be needed. As exemplified herein, these data are highly suitable for detecting differences in community composition by habitat type and confirmed our pre-dam removal expectations: that the odds of low native fish diversity are far greater among reservoir sites along the Klamath River than in streams, and that streams in the study area have greater native species richness than reservoir sites (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe library can be used to generate information about key indicator species expected to respond strongly to changes in the ecosystem or significant management decisions. Early signs of ecological recovery or deterioration would be seen from response of indicator species, providing timely information about effectiveness of dam removal. Pre-dam removal conditions revealed that reservoirs had low native fish diversity, and they were characterized by the presence of exotic species that were generally absent or in low abundance in streams (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). These differences in species composition were visualized using NMDS plots (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), that showed a clear differentiation between stream and reservoir groups, which can be tracked through time when comparing post-dam removal species compositions. Additionally, these results are consistent with the known species composition in the basin between lentic and lotic habitats\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The emergence of significantly correlated presence of non-native indicator species within reservoir sites demonstrated the utility of metabarcoding to illuminate differences in species composition and could provide a useful approach in the future to track the ecosystem response trajectory at former reservoir sites. Timely and consistent information about indicator species would allow for adaptive adjustments in monitoring, management, and restoration strategies, ultimately increasing the chances of successful recovery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcological models used to relate eNA concentration in flowing waters to the distribution and abundance of aquatic species should account for directional transport over space and time, dilution, decay, deposition, and entrainment of genetic material, throughout a river network\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, species distribution models should account for the potential for the dispersion of the species that release genetic material to be spatially autocorrelated as well\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, reservoirs and other impoundments to regular streamflow represent challenges for using existing models that integrate hydrology and the transport of genetic material by violating assumptions of unidirectional flow\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Due to a series of reservoirs being present in the pre-dam removal condition on the Klamath River, we chose to use estimated stream discharge as a proxy for downstream transport distance of genetic material\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and use distances between monitoring sites to reduce the probability of extra-organismal eNA being transported between sites. In other river systems where isolation by transport distance is not suitable (i.e., greater spatial sampling frequency is required), or when target organisms may predominantly release organismal-eNA (e.g., spores, gametes, larvae) that persist over longer transport distances\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e85\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e86\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, additional sampling considerations and models that incorporate a spatial stream-network (SSN) autocorrelative structure may be warranted. Although eDNA species detections in this study were largely consistent with the known species composition in the basin by habitat type\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, due to the proximity of upstream reservoirs to three monitoring sites in the Klamath River downstream of Iron Gate Reservoir, Copco Reservoir, and JC Boyle Reservoir (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e location numbers four, eight, and eleven respectively), it remains unclear whether the detections at those sites were a function of the downstream transport of eDNA or downstream transport of the species themselves. Future studies hoping to use eNA to describe change in species compositions following large-scale geomorphic and hydraulic changes associated with dam removal, may require accounting for eNA transport dynamics in reservoirs to describe the change from baseline conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDam removal is expected to alter the connectivity among populations and community networks, which in turn may cause shifts in demography, reproductive success, and life history diversity\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR88\" citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e87\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e89\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Given that data from the molecular library would provide information on where and when species occur, observed changes to species distributions would support genetic monitoring activities. Genetic data can provide insights into the connectivity of populations, potential re-establishment events, and the overall health of species that might not be apparent from population counts alone\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e90\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding a tool for the future: roles, governance, and establishing a long-term molecular sample library\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe goal to establish a long-term archive of eNA samples to track ecosystem response to the historical KRRP arises from two fundamental realizations. First, genomic technologies, reference libraries, and phylogenetic metaknowledge will continue to advance over time, providing new tools, approaches, and interpretations\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e91\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e that will be incorporated into molecular ecology applications such as studying the biological and ecological outcomes of dam removal. For example, having contemporaneous samples from the time periods before and immediately following dam removal, as well as future samples that become available, should be useful for future researchers applying these new technologies and asking questions that we currently cannot anticipate. For example, life history diversity of salmonids increased in the Elwha River following dam removal\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e89\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and genomic variation corresponded with traditionally observed ecotypes of Pacific lamprey (\u003cem\u003eEntosphenus tridentatus\u003c/em\u003e) in the Klamath River\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e92\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. How expression of life history diversity in the Klamath River Basin unfolds is yet to be seen, but curating collected genetic material and associated metadata, and future genomic applications of eNA, will maximize utility of the molecular library far beyond our immediate use. The second realization is that the response of the ecosystem to dam removal will continue to unfold over the next several decades, a timespan rarely encompassed in dam removal or river restoration evaluations\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Although early results in the Klamath River and elsewhere show that fish readily occupy upstream areas following restored connectivity, documenting how that translates into increased productivity, life history diversity, and community dynamics can take longer to unfold\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e87\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e93\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e94\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. For example, the life span of Chinook salmon (\u003cem\u003eOncorhynchus tshawytscha\u003c/em\u003e) and steelhead trout (\u003cem\u003eOncorhynchus mykiss\u003c/em\u003e) dictates that only about two or three generations pass per decade (i.e., spawner-to-spawner), meaning that the cumulative response of populations will unfold over a timespan exceeding typical funding cycles. The long-term archive of eNA will provide an opportunity to study how these ecological processes evolved over several decades, which will improve our understanding of the complexity of river restoration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the obvious benefits of data and sample archives, the reuse of genetic and genomic datasets is uncommon due to the lack of a formalized structure for sample archiving, discovery, and metadata\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e95\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Although a formalized governance structure and permanent location for the molecular library has yet to be determined, we propose that it follow the principles outlined in several review papers related to genetic-based environmental/tissue sample archives (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR96 CR97 CR98 CR99\" citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e95\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e100\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. To ensure that data are discoverable and reusable, adoption of FAIR practices (i.e., findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e97\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e) into the molecular library data sharing agreements would ensure that sample accession numbers and digital object identifiers of studies could be used to track sample use across projects and maintain interoperability. This formalized structure must ensure that future users are able to discover the archive and assess its ability to meet their needs, establish roles and responsibilities as a molecular library user, and include processes for adding additional samples to the archive, with appropriate metadata and data discoverability. Similarly, a robust metadata requirement is recommended, so the existing and future molecular library samples contain the necessary details (e.g., at nested levels of site, filter, and extracted DNA and RNA) of the study and sample context, which is essential for future use and reuse. Data access protocols, including adherence to data sharing guidelines, must be streamlined so that requests to the library\u0026mdash;both for repositing new samples and using existing samples\u0026mdash;are dealt with in a transparent manner over reasonable timeframes. Finally, determining a home for the library, especially the time capsule element, is critical for ensuring the long-term viability of the samples and any data that are generated from its use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur intention is to curate the molecular library to enhance the ability for Tribal and agency managers and researchers, local communities, academic institutions, and interested parties to study landscape-scale biological response to dam removal and restoration. Continued engagement with these groups and subsequent additions of samples and sequence reads will facilitate the iterative refinement of the molecular library as an equitably governed public data resource and a progressive tool that provides the genetic material for retrospective analyses of previously unstudied dam removal outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe thank Cheryl Dean for her invaluable support and contributions to molecular analysis for this study. Special thanks to Lauren Frick for assistance with geospatial database management and mapping, and John Lang, Joel Ophoff, Olivia Vosburg, Stephen Staiger, and David Coffman for rugged field navigation expertise and data collection activities. Thanks to the extensive and valued internal review\u0026nbsp;by Leanne Knutson with the Yurok Tribal Fisheries Department. Additionally, we want to acknowledge that the Klamath dam removal was the result of advocacy from the Tribes of the Klamath River Basin, state and federal governments, and the many other organizations.\u0026nbsp;Finally, we extend our gratitude to our reviewers for their insightful feedback and support. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDK and DC led the conceptualization of this work, conducted field investigation and data collection, contributed to the original draft, review and editing of the manuscript. KK, GS, and SB led the molecular analysis. DK and KK led the statistical analysis and figure creation. SB, GS, and OO contributed to study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafted content. JD and CO contributed to the conceptualization, investigation, original draft, review and editing of the manuscript. All authors approve of this manuscript being submitted when it reaches its final form.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data generated or analyzed during this study are available in publicly accessible repositories. The datasets, along with associated metadata and analysis scripts, are hosted on GitHub and can be accessed at [https://github.com/Dylan-Keel/Klamath-River-Renewal-Project-Molecular-Library] and permanent data hosting repository services are provided by DRYAD: [DOI: 10.5061/dryad.0cfxpnwcn]. This repository contains metadata associated with molecular library samples and sampling locations, complete code for data visualization and analysis, photos, figures, and raw sequence read data ensuring transparency and reproducibility of the study. Sequencing data generated in this study have been deposited in the NCBI BioProject database under accession number PRJNA1236377. Additionally, supplemental materials outlining additional statistical and molecular methods, as well as considerations for the governance of the molecular library are provided therein.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDK and DC are employed by the restoration contractor for the Klamath River Renewal Project (Lower Klamath Project). Ongoing Lower Klamath Project restoration actions and performance monitoring are expected over the next six years and have facilitated the initial establishment of the molecular library.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLynch, A. J. et al. People need freshwater biodiversity. \u003cem\u003eWIREs Water\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e10\u003c/b\u003e, e1633 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDudgeon, D. et al. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. \u003cem\u003eBiol. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e81\u003c/b\u003e, 163 (2006).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJelks, H. L. et al. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. \u003cem\u003eFisheries\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e33\u003c/b\u003e, 372\u0026ndash;407 (2008).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReid, A. J. et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. \u003cem\u003eBiol. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e94\u003c/b\u003e, 849\u0026ndash;873 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eV\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;smarty, C. J. et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e467\u003c/b\u003e, 555\u0026ndash;561 (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTickner, D. et al. Bending the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss \u0026ndash; an emergency recovery plan. \u003cem\u003eBioScience\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e70\u003c/b\u003e, 330\u0026ndash;342 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaasri, A. et al. A global agenda for advancing freshwater biodiversity research. \u003cem\u003eEcol. Lett.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e25\u003c/b\u003e, 255\u0026ndash;263 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArthington, A. H. et al. Accelerating environmental flow implementation to bend the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e32\u003c/b\u003e, 387\u0026ndash;413 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBirnie-Gauvin, K. et al. The RACE for freshwater biodiversity: Essential actions to create the social context for meaningful conservation. \u003cem\u003eConserv. Sci. Pract.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e5\u003c/b\u003e, e12911 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e355\u003c/b\u003e, eaai9214 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoff, N. L. et al. The natural flow regime. \u003cem\u003eBioScience\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e47\u003c/b\u003e, 769\u0026ndash;784 (1997).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeechie, T. J. et al. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eBioScience\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e60\u003c/b\u003e, 209\u0026ndash;222 (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSilva, A. T. et al. The future of fish passage science, engineering, and practice. \u003cem\u003eFish. Fish.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e19\u003c/b\u003e, 340\u0026ndash;362 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThieme, M. et al. Measures to safeguard and restore river connectivity. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e32\u003c/b\u003e, 366\u0026ndash;386 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Connor, J. E., Duda, J. J. \u0026amp; Grant, G. E. 1000 dams down and counting. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e348\u003c/b\u003e, 496\u0026ndash;497 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMagilligan, F. J. et al. River restoration by dam removal: Enhancing connectivity at watershed scales. \u003cem\u003eElem. Sci. Anthr\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e4\u003c/b\u003e, 000108 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuda, J. J. \u0026amp; Bellmore, J. R. Dam removal and river restoration. in \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of Inland Waters\u003c/em\u003e 576\u0026ndash;585Elsevier, (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBellmore, J. R. et al. Status and trends of dam removal research in the United States. \u003cem\u003eWIREs Water\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e4\u003c/b\u003e, e1164 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCaffery, R., Duda, J. J., Soissons, L., Roussel, J. M. \u0026amp; Editorial Large-scale dam removal and ecosystem restoration. \u003cem\u003eFront. Ecol. Evol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e12\u003c/b\u003e, 1471146 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiva, F. et al. Toward a cohesive understanding of ecological complexity. \u003cem\u003eSci. Adv.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e, eabq4207 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSparrow, B. D. et al. Effective ecosystem monitoring requires a multi-scaled approach. \u003cem\u003eBiol. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e95\u003c/b\u003e, 1706\u0026ndash;1719 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCavender-Bares, J. et al. Integrating remote sensing with ecology and evolution to advance biodiversity conservation. \u003cem\u003eNat. Ecol. Evol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e6\u003c/b\u003e, 506\u0026ndash;519 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBernatchez, L., Ferchaud, A. L., Berger, C. S., Venney, C. J. \u0026amp; Xuereb, A. Genomics for monitoring and understanding species responses to global climate change. \u003cem\u003eNat. Rev. Genet.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e25\u003c/b\u003e, 165\u0026ndash;183 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNicholson, E. et al. Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. \u003cem\u003eNat. Ecol. Evol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e5\u003c/b\u003e, 1338\u0026ndash;1349 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClark, D. R. et al. Streams of data from drops of water: 21st century molecular microbial ecology. \u003cem\u003eWIREs Water\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e5\u003c/b\u003e, (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLevi, T. et al. Environmental DNA for the enumeration and management of Pacific salmon. \u003cem\u003eMol. Ecol. Resour.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e19\u003c/b\u003e, 597\u0026ndash;608 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiyata, K. et al. Comparative environmental RNA and DNA metabarcoding analysis of river algae and arthropods for ecological surveys and water quality assessment. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e12\u003c/b\u003e, 19828 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarraro, L., Blackman, R. C. \u0026amp; Altermatt, F. Modelling environmental DNA transport in rivers reveals highly resolved spatio-temporal biodiversity patterns. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e13\u003c/b\u003e, 8854 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvans, N. T., Shirey, P. D., Wieringa, J. G., Mahon, A. R. \u0026amp; Lamberti, G. A. Comparative Cost and Effort of Fish Distribution Detection via Environmental DNA Analysis and Electrofishing. \u003cem\u003eFisheries\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e42\u003c/b\u003e, 90\u0026ndash;99 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoldberg, C. S. et al. Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. \u003cem\u003eMethods Ecol. Evol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e7\u003c/b\u003e, 1299\u0026ndash;1307 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSutter, M. \u0026amp; Kinziger, A. P. Rangewide tidewater goby occupancy survey using environmental DNA. \u003cem\u003eConserv. Genet.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e20\u003c/b\u003e, 597\u0026ndash;613 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiya, M. \u0026amp; Environmental DNA metabarcoding: A novel method for biodiversity monitoring of marine fish communities. \u003cem\u003eAnnu. Rev. Mar. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e14\u003c/b\u003e, 161\u0026ndash;185 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdams, A. J. et al. From eDNA to decisions using a multi-method approach to restoration planning in streams. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e14\u003c/b\u003e, 14335 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDyson, K. et al. Coupling remote sensing and eDNA to monitor environmental impact: A pilot to quantify the environmental benefits of sustainable agriculture in the Brazilian Amazon. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e19\u003c/b\u003e, e0289437 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuda, J. J. et al. Environmental DNA is an effective tool to track recolonizing migratory fish following large-scale dam removal. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. DNA\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e, 121\u0026ndash;141 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuha, T. P., Rodriguez-Barreto, D., O\u0026rsquo;Rorke, R., De Leaniz, G., Consuegra, S. \u0026amp; C. \u0026amp; Using eDNA metabarcoding to monitor changes in fish community composition after barrier removal. \u003cem\u003eFront. Ecol. Evol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e, 629217 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang, C. S. et al. Early detection and recovery of river herring spawning habitat use in response to a mainstem dam removal. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e18\u003c/b\u003e, e0284561 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeufeld, J. D. Migrating SSU rRNA gene surveys to the metagenomics era. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Microbiol. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e, 23\u0026ndash;24 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrench-Fiol, S. \u0026amp; Fink, P. Metatranscriptomics from a small aquatic system: Microeukaryotic community functions through the diurnal cycle. \u003cem\u003eFront. Microbiol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e, 1006 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eK\u0026uuml;ster, A., Becker, P. R., Kucklick, J. R., Pugh, R. S. \u0026amp; Koschorreck, J. The international environmental specimen banks\u0026mdash;let\u0026rsquo;s get visible. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Pollut Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e22\u003c/b\u003e, 1559\u0026ndash;1561 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD\u0026iacute;az, C. et al. Aquatic suspended particulate matter as source of eDNA for fish metabarcoding. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e10\u003c/b\u003e, 14352 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKrehenwinkel, H. et al. Environmental DNA from archived leaves reveals widespread temporal turnover and biotic homogenization in forest arthropod communities. \u003cem\u003eeLife\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e, e78521 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSullivan, A. R., Karlsson, E., Svensson, D. \u0026amp; Brindefalk, B. Airborne eDNA captures three decades of ecosystem biodiversity.\u003cem\u003ebioRxiv.\u003c/em\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZizka, V. M. A., Koschorreck, J., Khan, C. C. \u0026amp; Astrin, J. J. Long-term archival of environmental samples empowers biodiversity monitoring and ecological research. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Eur.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e34\u003c/b\u003e, 40 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDysthe, J. C. et al. Repurposing environmental DNA samples\u0026mdash;detecting the western pearlshell (\u003cem\u003eMargaritifera falcata\u003c/em\u003e) as a proof of concept. \u003cem\u003eEcol. Evol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e, 2659\u0026ndash;2670 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJarman, S. N., Berry, O. \u0026amp; Bunce, M. The value of environmental DNA biobanking for long-term biomonitoring. \u003cem\u003eNat. Ecol. Evol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e, 1192\u0026ndash;1193 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuer, H. et al. The effects of frozen tissue storage conditions on the integrity of RNA and protein. \u003cem\u003eBiotech. Histochem.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e89\u003c/b\u003e, 518\u0026ndash;528 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoudy, D., Colotte, M., Luis, A., Tuffet, S. \u0026amp; Bonnet, J. Long term conservation of DNA at ambient temperature. Implications for DNA data storage. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e16\u003c/b\u003e, e0259868 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin Area Office, Mid Pacific Region. Final biological assessment, the effects of the proposed action to operate the Klamath Project from April 1,. \u003cem\u003ethrough March 31, 2023 on federally-listed threatened and endangered species\u003c/em\u003e. (2012). (2012). (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson, M. K. \u0026amp; Lake, F. K. California Indian ethnomycology and associated forest management. \u003cem\u003eJ. Ethnobiol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e33\u003c/b\u003e, 33\u0026ndash;85 (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLake, F. K. et al. Returning fire to the land: celebrating traditional knowledge and fire. \u003cem\u003eJ. For.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e115\u003c/b\u003e, 343\u0026ndash;353 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarks-Block, T., Lake, F. K. \u0026amp; Curran, L. M. Effects of understory fire management treatments on California Hazelnut, an ecocultural resource of the Karuk and Yurok Indians in the Pacific Northwest. \u003cem\u003eEcol. Manag\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e450\u003c/b\u003e, 117517 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEngland, J. et al. Best practices for monitoring and assessing the ecological response to river restoration. \u003cem\u003eWater\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e13\u003c/b\u003e, 3352 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindenmayer, D. B. \u0026amp; Likens, G. E. The science and application of ecological monitoring. \u003cem\u003eBiol. Conserv.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e143\u003c/b\u003e, 1317\u0026ndash;1328 (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHart, D. D. et al. Dam Removal: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecological Research and River Restoration. \u003cem\u003eBioScience\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e52\u003c/b\u003e, 669 (2002).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDoyle, M. W. et al. Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: Lessons from the Heartland. \u003cem\u003eGeomorphology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e71\u003c/b\u003e, 227\u0026ndash;244 (2005).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFoley, M. M. et al. Dam removal: Listening in. \u003cem\u003eWater Resour. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e53\u003c/b\u003e, 5229\u0026ndash;5246 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJo, T. \u0026amp; Yamanaka, H. Meta-analyses of environmental DNA downstream transport and deposition in relation to hydrogeography in riverine environments. \u003cem\u003eFreshw. Biol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e67\u003c/b\u003e, 1333\u0026ndash;1343 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBellmore, J. R. et al. Conceptualizing ecological responses to dam removal: If you remove it, what\u0026rsquo;s to come? \u003cem\u003eBioScience\u003c/em\u003e 69, 26\u0026ndash;39 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePalmer, M. A. et al. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. \u003cem\u003eJ. Appl. Ecol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e42\u003c/b\u003e, 208\u0026ndash;217 (2005).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCurtis, A. N., Tiemann, J. S., Douglass, S. A., Davis, M. A. \u0026amp; Larson, E. R. High stream flows dilute environmental DNA (eDNA) concentrations and reduce detectability. \u003cem\u003eDivers. Distrib.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e27\u003c/b\u003e, 1918\u0026ndash;1931 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThompson, N. F. et al. A complex phenotype in salmon controlled by a simple change in migratory timing. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e370\u003c/b\u003e, 609\u0026ndash;613 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamilton, J. B., Curtis, G. L., Snedaker, S. M. \u0026amp; White, D. K. Distribution of anadromous fishes in the Upper Klamath River Watershed prior to hydropower dams\u0026mdash;a synthesis of the historical evidence. \u003cem\u003eFisheries\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e30\u003c/b\u003e, 10\u0026ndash;20 (2005).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSutton, R. \u0026amp; Soto, T. Juvenile coho salmon behavioral characteristics in Klamath River summer thermal refugia. \u003cem\u003eRiver Res. Appl.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e28\u003c/b\u003e, 338\u0026ndash;346 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiya, M. et al. Use of a filter cartridge for filtration of water samples and extraction of environmental DNA. \u003cem\u003eJ Vis. Exp. JoVE\u003c/em\u003e (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiya, M. et al. MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. \u003cem\u003eR Soc. Open. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e, 150088 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Donnell, J. L., Kelly, R. P., Lowell, N. C. \u0026amp; Port, J. A. Indexed PCR primers induce template-specific bias in large-scale DNA sequencing studies. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e, e0148698 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePorter, T. M., Hajibabaei, M. \u0026amp; MetaWorks A flexible, scalable bioinformatic pipeline for high-throughput multi-marker biodiversity assessments. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e17\u003c/b\u003e, e0274260 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. \u0026amp; Lipman, D. J. Basic local alignment search tool. \u003cem\u003eJ. Mol. Biol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e215\u003c/b\u003e, 403\u0026ndash;410 (1990).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarraro, L., M\u0026auml;chler, E., W\u0026uuml;thrich, R. \u0026amp; Altermatt, F. Environmental DNA allows upscaling spatial patterns of biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eNat. Commun.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e, 3585 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOksanen, J. et al. Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.2-1. 2. 1\u0026ndash;2. (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eR Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A. \u0026amp; Smith, G. M. \u003cem\u003eMixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R\u003c/em\u003e (Springer New York, 2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePollock, H. S. et al. Long-term monitoring reveals widespread and severe declines of understory birds in a protected Neotropical forest. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 119, e2108731119 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindgren, F., Rue, H. \u0026amp; Lindstr\u0026ouml;m, J. An explicit link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian Markov random fields: The stochastic partial differential equation approach: link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian Markov random fields. \u003cem\u003eJ. R Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e73\u003c/b\u003e, 423\u0026ndash;498 (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZimmerman, D. L. \u0026amp; Ver Hoef, J. M. The Torgegram for fluvial variography: Characterizing spatial dependence on stream networks. \u003cem\u003eJ. Comput. Graph Stat.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e26\u003c/b\u003e, 253\u0026ndash;264 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRue, H., Martino, S. \u0026amp; Chopin, N. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. \u003cem\u003eJ. R Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e71\u003c/b\u003e, 319\u0026ndash;392 (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindgren, F. \u0026amp; Rue, H. Bayesian spatial modelling with \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e - INLA. \u003cem\u003eJ Stat. Softw\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e63\u003c/b\u003e, (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobin, X. et al. pROC: An open-source package for R and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;to analyze and compare ROC curves. \u003cem\u003eBMC Bioinform.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e12\u003c/b\u003e, 77 (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNRC (National Research Council). \u003cem\u003eEndangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Causes of Decline and Strategies for Recovery\u003c/em\u003e10838 (National Academies, 2004).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarraro, L., Hartikainen, H., Jokela, J., Bertuzzo, E. \u0026amp; Rinaldo, A. Estimating species distribution and abundance in river networks using environmental DNA. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 115, 11724\u0026ndash;11729 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWinkowski, J. J., Olden, J. D. \u0026amp; Brown, S. Integrating spatial stream network models and environmental DNA to estimate current and future distributions of nonnative Smallmouth Bass. \u003cem\u003eTrans. Am. Fish. Soc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e153\u003c/b\u003e, 180\u0026ndash;199 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVer Hoef, J. M., Peterson, E. E., Clifford, D. \u0026amp; Shah, R. SSN : An \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e Package for Spatial Statistical Modeling on Stream Networks. \u003cem\u003eJ Stat. Softw\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e56\u003c/b\u003e, (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStruthers, D. P. et al. Statistical stream temperature modelling with SSN and INLA: an introduction for conservation practitioners. \u003cem\u003eCan. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e81\u003c/b\u003e, 417\u0026ndash;432 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodriguez-Ezpeleta, N. et al. Trade‐offs between reducing complex terminology and producing accurate interpretations from environmental DNA: Comment on Environmental DNA: What\u0026rsquo;s behind the term? by Pawlowski et al., \u003cem\u003eMol. Ecol.\u003c/em\u003e 30, 4601\u0026ndash;4605 (2021). (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeiner, K. \u0026amp; Altermatt, F. Transport Distance of Invertebrate Environmental DNA in a Natural River. \u003cem\u003ePLoS ONE\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e, e88786 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePess, G. R., Quinn, T. P., Gephard, S. R. \u0026amp; Saunders, R. Re-colonization of Atlantic and Pacific rivers by anadromous fishes: linkages between life history and the benefits of barrier removal. \u003cem\u003eRev. Fish. Biol. Fish.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e24\u003c/b\u003e, 881\u0026ndash;900 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaldman, J. R. \u0026amp; Quinn, T. P. North American diadromous fishes: Drivers of decline and potential for recovery in the Anthropocene. \u003cem\u003eSci. Adv.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e, eabl5486 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMunsch, S. H. et al. Dam removal enables diverse juvenile life histories to emerge in threatened salmonids repopulating a heterogeneous landscape. \u003cem\u003eFront. Ecol. Evol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e, 1188921 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFraik, A. K. et al. The impacts of dam construction and removal on the genetics of recovering steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) populations across the Elwha River Watershed. \u003cem\u003eGenes\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e12\u003c/b\u003e, 89 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoodwin, S., McPherson, J. D. \u0026amp; McCombie, W. R. Coming of age: ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies. \u003cem\u003eNat. Rev. Genet.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e17\u003c/b\u003e, 333\u0026ndash;351 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParker, K. A., Hess, J. E., Narum, S. R. \u0026amp; Kinziger, A. P. Evidence for the genetic basis and epistatic interactions underlying ocean- and river‐maturing ecotypes of Pacific Lamprey (\u003cem\u003eEntosphenus tridentatus\u003c/em\u003e) returning to the Klamath River, California. \u003cem\u003eMol. Ecol.\u003c/em\u003e mec.15136 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZydlewski, J. et al. Seven dam challenges for migratory fish: Insights from the Penobscot River. \u003cem\u003eFront. Ecol. Evol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e, 1253657 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHitt, N. P., Eyler, S. \u0026amp; Wofford, J. E. B. Dam removal increases American eel abundance in distant headwater streams. \u003cem\u003eTrans. Am. Fish. Soc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e141\u003c/b\u003e, 1171\u0026ndash;1179 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeigh, D. M. et al. Best practices for genetic and genomic data archiving. \u003cem\u003eNat. Ecol. Evol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e, 1224\u0026ndash;1232 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNicholson, A. et al. An analysis of metadata reporting in freshwater environmental DNA research calls for the development of best practice guidelines. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. DNA\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e, 343\u0026ndash;349 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. \u003cem\u003eSci. Data\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e, 160018 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBergstr\u0026ouml;m, A. Improving data archiving practices in ancient genomics. \u003cem\u003eSci. Data\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e, 754 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eISBER Best Practices: Recommendations for Repositories\u003c/em\u003e. (International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories, (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBabel, M. et al. Compared DNA and RNA quality of breast cancer biobanking samples after long-term storage protocols in \u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;80\u0026deg;C and liquid nitrogen. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e10\u003c/b\u003e, 14404 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Environmental DNA (eDNA), Klamath, metabarcoding, environmental specimen bank (ESB), dam removal, river restoration","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575262/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575262/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eGlobal restoration and conservation of freshwater biodiversity are represented in practice by works such as the Klamath River Renewal Project (KRRP), the largest dam removal and river restoration in the United States, which has reconnected 640 river kilometers. With dam removals, many biological outcomes remain understudied due to a lack of pre-impact data and complex ecosystem recovery timeframes. To avoid this, we created the KRRP molecular library, an environmental specimen bank, for long-term curation of environmental nucleic acids collected from the restoration project. We used these initial samples, environmental DNA metabarcoding, and generalized linear mixed-effects models to evaluate patterns of pre-dam removal fish richness and diversity. Demonstrating the suitability to resolve biological differences, the baseline shows that tributary and mainstem streams had greater native fish diversity and 2.3\u0026ndash;10.7 times greater native fish species richness than reservoirs. These and future sampling efforts should, at a minimum, allow tracking of fish community response to ecosystem restoration. Anticipating the acceleration of omics innovation, we preserved samples for long-term storage and identified requisite phases for sustained function and adaptation of the molecular library: securing a physical storage facility for genetic material, establishing a governance structure, and confirming support for archive management.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"A molecular specimen bank for contemporary and future study captures landscape-scale biodiversity baselines before Klamath River dam removal ","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-03 09:21:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5575262/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-04-24T06:50:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-04-23T14:00:39+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-04-11T14:47:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"207254846698620145096582366958140577286","date":"2025-04-03T14:40:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"291052150232997068685168318584837144929","date":"2025-04-02T11:38:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-02T11:07:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-01T06:00:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2025-03-22T04:16:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1c124c0b-c3e3-448d-8bef-c1704e60b555","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 3rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":46574751,"name":"Biological sciences/Biochemistry/Dna"},{"id":46574752,"name":"Biological sciences/Biochemistry/Rna"},{"id":46574753,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology"},{"id":46574754,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology/Ecological genetics"},{"id":46574755,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology/Ecological modelling"},{"id":46574756,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental sciences/Environmental impact"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-07T16:07:18+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5575262","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07042-1","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2025-07-01 15:58:28","publishedOnDateReadable":"July 1st, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-03 09:21:15","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-025-07042-1","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07042-1","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5575262","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5575262","identity":"rs-5575262","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}