The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Environmental Conditions Influence eDNA Persistence in Aquatic Systems
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) surveillance holds great promise for improving species conservation and management. However, few studies have investigated eDNA dynamics under natural conditions, and interpretations of eDNA surveillance results are clouded by uncertainties about eDNA degradation. We conducted a literature review to assess current understanding of eDNA degradation in aquatic systems and an experiment exploring how environmental conditions can influence eDNA degradation. Previous studies have reported macrobial eDNA persistence ranging from less than 1 day to over 2 weeks, with no attempts to quantify factors affecting degradation. Using a SYBR Green quantitative PCR assay to observe Common Carp ( Cyprinus carpio ) eDNA degradation in laboratory mesocosms, our rate of Common Carp eDNA detection decreased over time. Common Carp eDNA concentration followed a pattern of exponential decay, and observed decay rates exceeded previously published values for aquatic macrobial eDNA. Contrary to our expectations, eDNA degradation rate declined as biochemical oxygen demand, chlorophyll, and total eDNA (i.e., from any organism) concentration increased. Our results help explain the widely divergent, previously published estimates for eDNA degradation. Measurements of local environmental conditions, consideration of environmental influence on eDNA detection, and quantification of local eDNA degradation rates will help interpret future eDNA surveillance results.
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
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves
Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J.-C., & Müller, M. (2011) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-12-77 · Cited by 13,697
Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA
Lindahl, T. (1993) · Nature · doi:10.1038/362709a0 · Cited by 5,679
Cascading Trophic Interactions and Lake Productivity
Carpenter, S. R., Kitchell, J. F., & Hodgson, J. R. (1985) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1309989 · Cited by 2,646
Direct and indirect effects of UV radiation on DNA and its components
Ravanat, J.-L., Douki, T., & Cadet, J. (2001) · Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology · doi:10.1016/s1011-1344(01)00206-8 · Cited by 980
Cited by
Environmental DNA – An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity
Thomsen, P. F., & Willerslev, E. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019 · Cited by 2,082
Seasonal variation in environmental DNA in relation to population size and environmental factors
Buxton, A. S., Groombridge, J. J., Zakaria, N. B., & Griffiths, R. A. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep46294 · Cited by 203
O'Malley, K., McDonald, W., & McNamara, P. (2023) · Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology · doi:10.1039/d3ew00356f · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Barnes, M. A., Turner, C. R., Jerde, C. L., Renshaw, M. A., Chadderton, W. L., & Lodge, D. M.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2014-01-21
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1819-1827
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2329540589
- Cited by
- 939
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 37.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.