Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 555

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water

Open access
Turner, Cameron R., Uy, Karen L., Everhart, Robert C.·2015·Biological Conservation

Abstract

Genetic identification of aqueous environmental DNA (eDNA) provides site occupancy inferences for rare aquatic macrofauna that are often easier to obtain than direct observations of organisms. This relative ease makes eDNA sampling a valuable tool for conservation biology. Research on the origin, state, transport, and fate of eDNA shed by aquatic macrofauna is needed to describe the spatiotemporal context for eDNA-based occupancy inferences and to guide eDNA sampling design. We tested the hypothesis that eDNA is more concentrated in surficial sediments than in surface water by measuring the concentration of aqueous and sedimentary eDNA from an invasive fish, bigheaded Asian carp (Hypophthalmichthys spp.), in experimental ponds and natural rivers. We modified a simple, low-cost DNA extraction method to yield inhibitor-free eDNA from both sediment and water samples. Carp eDNA was 8–1800 times more concentrated per gram of sediment than per milliliter of water and was detected in sediments up to 132 days after carp removal – five times longer than any previous reports of macrobial eDNA persistence in water. These results may be explained by particle settling and/or retarded degradation of sediment-adsorbed DNA molecules. Compared to aqueous eDNA, sedimentary eDNA could provide a more abundant and longer-lasting source of genetic material for inferring current-or-past site occupancy by aquatic macrofauna, particularly benthic species. However, resuspension and transport of sedimentary eDNA could complicate the spatiotemporal inferences from surface water sampling, which is currently the predominant eDNA-based approach. We discuss these implications in the context of conservation-oriented monitoring in aquatic ecosystems.

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 · 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.017

Cites

2 of 2 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 555

Metadata

Authors
Turner, C. R., Uy, K. L., & Everhart, R. C.
Venue
Biological Conservation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
183
Pages
93-102
ISSN
0006-3207 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2045328330
Cited by
555
References
2
FWCI
22.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.