Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 558

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting the fate of eDNA in the environment and implications for studying biodiversity

Open access
Harrison, Jori B., Sunday, Jennifer M., Rogers, Sean M.·2019·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) applications are transforming the standard of characterizing aquatic biodiversity via the presence, location and abundance of DNA collected from environmental samples. As eDNA studies use DNA fragments as a proxy for the presence of organisms, the ecological properties of the complex and dynamic environments from which eDNA is sampled need to be considered for accurate biological interpretation. In this review, we discuss the role that differing environments play on the major processes that eDNA undergoes between organism and collection, including shedding, decay and transport. We focus on a mechanistic understanding of these processes and highlight how decay and transport models are being developed towards more accurate and robust predictions of the fate of eDNA. We conclude with five recommendations for eDNA researchers and practitioners, to advance current best practices, as well as to support a future model of eDNA spatio-temporal persistence.

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 · 10.1098/rspb.2019.1409

Cites

6 of 6 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

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Harrison, J. B., Sunday, J. M., & Rogers, S. M.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2019-11-20
Volume
286
Issue
1915
Pages
20191409
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2991648170
Cited by
558
References
6
FWCI
24.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.