USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70175735

Use of buccal swabs for sampling DNA from nestling and adult birds

Colleen M. Handel·Lisa M. Pajot·Sandra L. Talbot·George K. Sage
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We evaluated the feasibility and efficiency of using swabs to collect buccal epithelial cells from small (2‐ to 13‐ g ) birds as a source of DNA for genetic studies. We used commercially available buccal swab kits to collect samples from 42 adult and 39 nestling (4‐ to 8‐day‐old) black‐capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) and from 6 4‐day‐old nestling boreal chickadees (P. hudsonica). We compared DNA from buccal epithelial samples to that from blood samples from the same individuals. We extracted sufficient quantities of DNA for analysis from all buccal samples, and samples remained viable even after being stored in original plastic sampling tubes at room temperature for up to 18 months. Yields were equivalent whether extracted using the proprietary quick‐extraction solution provided with buccal swab kits or using a salt‐extraction process with inexpensive reagents. Yields of DNA from buccal samples were consistently lower than those from blood samples, but quantities were sufficient for all analyses. Assignment of sex, based on DNA extracted from paired buccal and blood samples, was identical for all 87 birds. We found no difference in the genotypes obtained from buccal and blood samples for 12 individuals tested using 5 microsatellite loci and found perfect concordance in sequencing of an 823‐base‐pair segment within the control region of mitochondrial DNA for 7 individuals tested. Use of buccal swabs is highly recommended as a rapid, noninvasive technique for sampling avian genomic DNA, especially for extremely young altricial nestlings or small‐bodied adults, or for any birds for which blood sampling may be impossible or stressful.

Explore related subjects

Wildlife Society BulletinArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Colleen M. Handel, Lisa M. Pajot, Sandra L. Talbot, George K. Sage. 2006. Use of buccal swabs for sampling DNA from nestling and adult birds. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34%5B1094%3Auobsfs%5D2.0.co%3B2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Considerations for using autonomous recording units to monitor northern bobwhite occupancy at large spatial scales

Northern bobwhites ( Colinus virginianus ) have experienced widespread declines across their range, increasing the need for population monitoring across broad spatial and temporal scales. Yet large-scale monitoring of post-breeding bobwhites remains limited by the time-intensive nature of fall (i.e., autumn) covey counts. Passive acoustic monitoring with autonomous recording units (ARUs) and automatic detection software may help overcome these constraints but requires further study. From 2017 to 2021, we paired in-person observer point counts with ARU surveys during the fall in southern Iowa, USA to 1) evaluate how ARU detections compare to observer detections, 2) assess the accuracy of automatic classification software for covey calls, 3) gauge the influence of weather and ordinal date on detection, and 4) offer best practices for processing ARU acoustic data. We found high correspondence (89.2%) in detection and non-detection outcomes between paired ARU and observer surveys. Across manually processed recordings, 95.7% of covey call detections occurred within a 35-min window (50–15 min before sunrise). Increasing wind speed and cloud cover were associated with reduced detection probabilities. Wind speeds ≥5 m/s resulted in detection probabilities <0.5. The cumulative probability of detecting bobwhites at a site exceeded 0.995 (95% Credible Interval [CrI] = 0.987, 0.999) after 4 survey days when technicians processed the files. Manual processing had the highest mean detection probability (0.75, 95% CrI = 0.66, 0.82) compared with automatic detection software with 2 different confidence thresholds (0.46 [95% CrI = 0.39, 0.53] and 0.45 [95% CrI = 0.36, 0.55]). Automatic detection software allowed for substantially faster processing with relatively few false positives (false positive rate of 0.014 to 0.038). Autonomous recording units coupled with automatic detection software provided a promising alternative to in-person observer point counts of bobwhite covey calls for determining site occupancy and have the potential to greatly increase capacity for landscape-level bobwhite monitoring.

Iowa↗
USGS2026

Developing a low-cost drone-based method for deploying and retrieving autonomous recording units in inaccessible areas

Autonomous Recording Units (ARUs) are increasingly used in research to support passive acoustic monitoring, but deployment in remote or inaccessible locations remains logistically challenging. Traditional manual placement is labor-intensive, time-consuming, potentially hazardous, and often limited to habitat edges, creating sampling biases and restricting spatial coverage. To address placement limitations in wetland systems, we developed and field-tested a low-cost, lightweight floating platform paired with a drone-based deployment and retrieval system. The drone-deployable ARU platform, constructed from inexpensive, off-the-shelf materials (~US $21 per unit), weighed ~560 g and was mounted with an ARU (AudioMoth) at ~1.2 m above water. The platform was designed for stability, portability, and compliance with Federal Aviation Administration Part 107 regulations. Field trials were conducted across 50 operations in various types of historical rice-field impoundments along the South Carolina coast, which provide critical habitat for secretive marsh birds such as rails (e.g ., Rallus, Laterallus , and Porzana ) and bitterns (e.g ., Botaurus and Ixobrychus ). All 50 deployments and retrievals were successful, demonstrating the robustness of the method under diverse hydrologic and vegetative conditions. Deployment times were significantly shorter than retrieval times (median 6 vs. 9 min), with retrieval requiring greater precision for hook engagement. Operation times scaled predictably with distance: deployment increased by 0.93 min/100 m (R 2 = 0.94) and retrieval by 1.17 min/100 m (R 2 = 0.95). No platform damage or displacement was observed, as emergent vegetation was likely providing natural anchoring. Our approach offers an affordable and effective solution for expanding ARU coverage in large, inaccessible wetlands, reducing sampling bias and enhancing biodiversity monitoring. With continued advances in drone payload capacity, battery endurance, and beyond-visual-line-of-sight flight regulations, our workflow could be adapted for deploying multi-sensor platforms (e.g., ARUs, eDNA samplers, water and air quality sensors, plant sample collectors, insect traps, and trail cameras) to support integrated biodiversity monitoring in challenging landscapes worldwide.

South Carollina↗