The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta‐analysis supports further refinement of eDNA for monitoring aquatic species‐specific abundance in nature
Open accessAbstract
The use of eDNA to detect the presence/absence of rare or invasive species is well documented and its use in biodiversity monitoring is expanding. Preliminary laboratory research has also shown a positive correlation between the concentration of species‐specific eDNA particles and the density/biomass of a species in a given environment. However, the extent to which these results can be extended to natural environments has yet to be formally quantified. We collated data from experiments that examined the correlation between eDNA and two metrics of abundance (biomass and density) and, using mixed‐effects meta‐analysis, quantified the strength of that correlation across laboratory and natural environments. We found that eDNA particle concentration was more strongly correlated with abundance in laboratory environments compared to natural environments, accounting for approximately 82% and 57% of the observed variation in abundance, respectively. We found some evidence of potential publication bias that may have impacted the estimation of the correlation in natural environments; after smaller studies were removed from the dataset, eDNA particle concentration accounted for approximately 50% of the observed variation in abundance in natural environments. No effect of abundance metric was found on the strength of correlation between eDNA particle concentration and abundance. Despite a weaker general correlation in natural environments, eDNA concentration often still explained substantial variation in abundance. eDNA research is still an emergent field of study; with only moderate improvements in technology or technique, it could represent a powerful new tool for quantifying abundance.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
VII. Note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents
Pearson, K. (1895) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London · doi:10.1098/rspl.1895.0041 · Cited by 3,424
On the probable error of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample
Fisher, R. A. (1921) · Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) · Cited by 2,089
Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA
THOMSEN, P. F., KIELGAST, J., IVERSEN, L. L., WIUF, C., RASMUSSEN, M., GILBERT, M. T. P., ORLANDO, L., & WILLERSLEV, E. (2012) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05418.x · Cited by 1,184
The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics
Barnes, M. A., & Turner, C. R. (2016) · Conservation Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10592-015-0775-4 · Cited by 1,139
Environmental Conditions Influence eDNA Persistence in Aquatic Systems
Barnes, M. A., Turner, C. R., Jerde, C. L., Renshaw, M. A., Chadderton, W. L., & Lodge, D. M. (2014) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es404734p · Cited by 939
Quantifying effects of UV-B, temperature, and pH on eDNA degradation in aquatic microcosms
Strickler, K. M., Fremier, A. K., & Goldberg, C. S. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.038 · Cited by 901
Estimation of Fish Biomass Using Environmental DNA
Takahara, T., Minamoto, T., Yamanaka, H., Doi, H., & Kawabata, Z. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035868 · Cited by 863
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical
Stuck, A. E., Rubenstein, L. Z., Wieland, D., Vandenbroucke, J. P., Irwig, L., Macaskill, P., Berry, G., Glasziou, P., Seagroatt, V., Stratton, I., et al. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7129.469 · Cited by 699
Luikart, G., Ryman, N., Tallmon, D. A., Schwartz, M. K., & Allendorf, F. W. (2010) · Conservation Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10592-010-0050-7 · Cited by 656
Cited by
Rourke, M. L., Fowler, A. M., Hughes, J. M., Broadhurst, M. K., DiBattista, J. D., Fielder, S., Wilkes Walburn, J., & Furlan, E. M. (2022) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.185 · Cited by 435
Keck, F., Blackman, R. C., Bossart, R., Brantschen, J., Couton, M., Hürlemann, S., Kirschner, D., Locher, N., Zhang, H., & Altermatt, F. (2022) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.16364 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Yates, M. C., Fraser, D. J., & Derry, A. M.
- Venue
- Environmental DNA
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-04-16
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-13
- ISSN
- 2637-4943 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2937376009
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 16.86
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta‐analysis supports further refinement of eDNA for monitoring aquatic species‐specific abundance in nature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/edn3.7
- The paper
- Yates, M. C., Fraser, D. J., & Derry, A. M. (2019). Meta‐analysis supports further refinement of eDNA for monitoring aquatic species‐specific abundance in nature. Environmental DNA. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.7
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.