The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Factors influencing detection of eDNA from a stream‐dwelling amphibian
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods for detecting and estimating abundance of aquatic species are emerging rapidly, but little is known about how processes such as secretion rate, environmental degradation, and time since colonization or extirpation from a given site affect eDNA measurements. Using stream‐dwelling salamanders and quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis, we conducted three experiments to assess eDNA: (i) production rate; (ii) persistence time under different temperature and light conditions; and (iii) detectability and concentration through time following experimental introduction and removal of salamanders into previously unoccupied streams. We found that 44–50 g individuals held in aquaria produced 77 ng eDNA/h for 2 h, after which production either slowed considerably or began to equilibrate with degradation. eDNA in both full‐sun and shaded treatments degraded exponentially to <1% of the original concentration after 3 days. eDNA was no longer detectable in full‐sun samples after 8 days, whereas eDNA was detected in 20% of shaded samples after 11 days and 100% of refrigerated control samples after 18 days. When translocated into unoccupied streams, salamanders were detectable after 6 h, but only when densities were relatively high (0.2481 individuals/m 2) and when samples were collected within 5 m of the animals. Concentrations of eDNA detected were very low and increased steadily from 6–24 h after introduction, reaching 0.0022 ng/L. Within 1 h of removing salamanders from the stream, eDNA was no longer detectable. These results suggest that eDNA detectability and concentration depend on production rates of individuals, environmental conditions, density of animals, and their residence time.
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
ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Andrew Royle, J., & Langtimm, C. A. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2248:esorwd]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,481
Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples
Ficetola, G. F., Miaud, C., Pompanon, F., & Taberlet, P. (2008) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2008.0118 · Cited by 1,707
“Sight‐unseen” detection of rare aquatic species using environmental DNA
Jerde, C. L., Mahon, A. R., Chadderton, W. L., & Lodge, D. M. (2011) · Conservation Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1755-263x.2010.00158.x · Cited by 1,304
Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA
THOMSEN, P. F., KIELGAST, J., IVERSEN, L. L., WIUF, C., RASMUSSEN, M., GILBERT, M. T. P., ORLANDO, L., & WILLERSLEV, E. (2012) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05418.x · Cited by 1,184
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 1×
“Exposure to UV-B creates as many as three dimeric pyrimidine lesions in every 1000 base pairs at 100 kJ/m2 (Ravanat et al. 2001), the minimum total UV reaching Earth in the conterminous U.S. during each summer month (Herman et al. 1999).”
BackgroundEstimation of Fish Biomass Using Environmental DNA
Takahara, T., Minamoto, T., Yamanaka, H., Doi, H., & Kawabata, Z. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035868 · Cited by 863
Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife–habitat models
Gu, W., & Swihart, R. K. (2004) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(03)00190-3 · Cited by 788
Persistence of Environmental DNA in Freshwater Ecosystems
Dejean, T., Valentini, A., Duparc, A., Pellier-Cuit, S., Pompanon, F., Taberlet, P., & Miaud, C. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023398 · Cited by 685
Pilliod, D. S., Goldberg, C. S., Arkle, R. S., & Waits, L. P. (2013) · Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0047 · Cited by 602
Self-citationGoldberg, C. S., Pilliod, D. S., Arkle, R. S., & Waits, L. P. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022746 · Cited by 592
Self-citation
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
Fish environmental DNA is more concentrated in aquatic sediments than surface water
Turner, C. R., Uy, K. L., & Everhart, R. C. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.017 · Cited by 555
Distance, flow and PCR inhibition: e DNA dynamics in two headwater streams
Jane, S. F., Wilcox, T. M., McKelvey, K. S., Young, M. K., Schwartz, M. K., Lowe, W. H., Letcher, B. H., & Whiteley, A. R. (2015) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12285 · Cited by 549
Biggs, J., Ewald, N., Valentini, A., Gaboriaud, C., Dejean, T., Griffiths, R. A., Foster, J., Wilkinson, J. W., Arnell, A., Brotherton, P., et al. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.029 · Cited by 503
Assessing vertebrate biodiversity in a kelp forest ecosystem using environmental DNA
Port, J. A., O'Donnell, J. L., Romero‐Maraccini, O. C., Leary, P. R., Litvin, S. Y., Nickols, K. J., Yamahara, K. M., & Kelly, R. P. (2016) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.13481 · Cited by 441
Metadata
- Authors
- Pilliod, D. S., Goldberg, C. S., Arkle, R. S., & Waits, L. P.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology Resources
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-09-06
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 109-116
- ISSN
- 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
- 1755-0998
- OpenAlex
- W2055228540
- Cited by
- 517
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 22.74
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Factors influencing detection of eDNA from a stream‐dwelling amphibian. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1755-0998.12159
- The paper
- Pilliod, D. S., Goldberg, C. S., Arkle, R. S., & Waits, L. P. (2014). Factors influencing detection of eDNA from a stream‐dwelling amphibian. Molecular Ecology Resources. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12159
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.
