Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 337

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Quantifying relative fish abundance with eDNA: a promising tool for fisheries management

Open access
Lacoursière‐Roussel, Anaïs, Côté, Guillaume, Leclerc, Véronique, Bernatchez, Louis·2016·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Assessment and monitoring of exploited fish populations are challenged by costs, logistics and negative impacts on target populations. These factors therefore limit large‐scale effective management strategies. Evidence is growing that the quantity of eDNA may be related not only to species presence/absence, but also to species abundance. In this study, the concentrations of environmental DNA (eDNA) from a highly prized sport fish species, Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush (Walbaum 1792), were estimated in water samples from 12 natural lakes and compared to abundance and biomass data obtained from standardized gillnet catches as performed routinely for fisheries management purposes. To reduce environmental variability among lakes, all lakes were sampled in spring, between ice melt and water stratification. The eDNA concentration did not vary significantly with water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and turbidity, but was significantly positively correlated with relative fish abundance estimated as catch per unit effort (CPUE), whereas the relationship with biomass per unit effort (BPUE) was less pronounced. The value of eDNA to inform about local aquatic species distribution was further supported by the similarity between the spatial heterogeneity of eDNA distribution and spatial variation in CPUE measured by the gillnet method. Synthesis and applications. Large‐scale empirical evidence of the relationship between the eDNA concentration and species abundance allows for the assessment of the potential to integrate eDNA within fisheries management plans. As such, the eDNA quantitative method represents a promising population abundance assessment tool that could significantly reduce the costs associated with sampling and increase the power of detection, the spatial coverage and the frequency of sampling, without any negative impacts on fish populations.

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 · 10.1111/1365-2664.12598

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lacoursière‐Roussel, A., Côté, G., Leclerc, V., & Bernatchez, L.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-01-18
Volume
53
Issue
4
Pages
1148-1157
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W2220054153
Cited by
337
References
0
FWCI
15.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.