Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 284

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 access
Yates, Matthew C., Fraser, Dylan J., Derry, Alison M.·2019·Environmental DNA
DOI 10.1002/edn3.7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/edn3.7

Cites

37 of 37 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

Cited by

See all 284

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)
DOI
10.1002/edn3.7
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

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.