Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Environmental DNA surveillance for invertebrate species: advantages and technical limitations to detect invasive crayfish Procambarus clarkii in freshwater ponds

Tréguier, Anne, Paillisson, Jean‐Marc, Dejean, Tony, Valentini, Alice, Schlaepfer, Martin A., Roussel, Jean‐Marc·2014·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: The introduction of non‐native species is a major threat to biodiversity. While eradication programs of well‐established invaders are costly and hazardous for non‐target species, the early detection of a non‐native species at low density is critical for preventing biological invasions in recipient ecosystems. Recent studies reveal that environmental DNA(e DNA) is a powerful tool for detecting target species in aquatic ecosystems, but these studies focus mostly on fish and amphibians. We examine the reliability of using e DNA to detect the presence of an invasive freshwater crustacean species, the red swamp crayfishP rocambarus clarkii. Species‐specific primers and probes were designed; their specificity was tested using in silicoPCR simulations and against tissues of other crayfish species. Limits of detection and quantification were specified for the target DNA sequence by means of quantitative PCR amplifications on dilution series of known amount ofP. clarkiiDNA. The method was applied to water samples collected in 158 ponds in a F rench N ature P ark, and results were compared to a traditional method using food‐baited funnel traps. Environmental DNA had a better detection efficiency but predominantly led to divergent results compared with the trapping method. While habitat features partly explained the failure of crayfish detection by trapping, detection by e DNA was problematic at low crayfish abundances. WhenP. clarkii was detected, the estimated concentrations of crayfish DNA in water samples were always below the limit of quantification for the target DNA sequence. Synthesis and applications. The combination of environmental DNA(e DNA) and conventional trapping methods is recommended to monitor the invasion byP. clarkii in small waterbodies such as ponds. However, the risk of mortality for non‐target species, notably amphibians, has to be carefully evaluated before large‐scale deployment of traps. Contrary to fish and amphibians, a low amount of extracellular DNA in water is suspected to be the major limitation for crayfish detection by molecular approaches. Current advancements in PCR technology, together with optimization of the water sampling method, promise upcoming developments of e DNA detection for aquatic invertebrate species.

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 · 10.1111/1365-2664.12262

Cites

5 of 5 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 271

Metadata

Authors
Tréguier, A., Paillisson, J., Dejean, T., Valentini, A., Schlaepfer, M. A., & Roussel, J.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-05-21
Volume
51
Issue
4
Pages
871-879
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W2060350250
Cited by
271
References
5
FWCI
18.74
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.