Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 435

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 109 of the 109 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool for assessing fish biomass: A review of approaches and future considerations for resource surveys

Open access
Rourke, Meaghan L., Fowler, Ashley M., Hughes, Julian M., Broadhurst, Matt K., DiBattista, Joseph D., Fielder, Stewart, Wilkes Walburn, Jackson, Furlan, Elise M·2022·Environmental DNA
DOI 10.1002/edn3.185
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) has revolutionized our ability to identify the presence and distributions of terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Recent evidence suggests the concentration of eDNA could also provide a rapid, cost‐effective indicator of abundance and/or biomass for fisheries stock assessments. Globally, fisheries resources are under immense pressure, and their sustainable harvest requires accurate information on the sizes of fished stocks. However, in many cases the required information remains elusive because of a reliance on imprecise or costly fishery‐dependent and independent data. Here, we review the literature describing relationships between eDNA concentrations and fish abundance and/or biomass, as well as key influencing factors, as a precursor to determining the broader utility of eDNA for monitoring fish populations. We reviewed 63 studies published between 2012 and 2020 and found 90% identified positive relationships between eDNA concentrations and the abundance and/or biomass of focal species. Key influencing biotic factors included the taxon examined as well as their body size, distribution, reproduction, and migration. Key abiotic factors mostly comprised hydrological processes affecting the dispersal and persistence of eDNA, especially water flow and temperature, although eDNA collection methods were also influential. The cumulative influence of these different factors likely explains the substantial variability observed in eDNA concentrations, both within and among studies. Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence to support using eDNA as an ancillary tool for assessing fish population abundance and/or biomass across discrete spatio‐temporal scales, following preliminary investigations to determine species‐ and context‐specific factors influencing the eDNA abundance/biomass relationship. Advantages of eDNA monitoring relative to other approaches include reduced costs, increased efficiencies, and nonlethal sampling.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/edn3.185

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Rourke, M. L., Fowler, A. M., Hughes, J. M., Broadhurst, M. K., DiBattista, J. D., Fielder, S., Wilkes Walburn, J., & Furlan, E. M.
Venue
Environmental DNA
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-02-25
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
9-33
ISSN
2637-4943 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/edn3.185
OpenAlex
W3133743945
Cited by
435
References
109
FWCI
31.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.