The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Site occupancy models in the analysis of environmental DNA presence/absence surveys: a case study of an emerging amphibian pathogen
Abstract
Summary: The use of environmental DNA (eDNA) to detect species in aquatic environments such as ponds and streams is a powerful new technique with many benefits. However, species detection in eDNA‐based surveys is likely to be imperfect, which can lead to underestimation of the distribution of a species. Site occupancy models account for imperfect detection and can be used to estimate the proportion of sites where a species occurs from presence/absence survey data, making them ideal for the analysis of eDNA‐based surveys. Imperfect detection can result from failure to detect the species during field work (e.g. by water samples) or during laboratory analysis (e.g. by PCR). To demonstrate the utility of site occupancy models for eDNA surveys, we reanalysed a data set estimating the occurrence of the amphibian chytrid fungus B atrachochytrium dendrobatidis using eDNA. Our reanalysis showed that the previous estimation of species occurrence was low by 5–10%. Detection probability was best explained by an index of the number of hosts (frogs) in ponds. Per‐visit availability probability in water samples was estimated at 0·45 (95% CRI 0·32, 0·58) and per‐PCR detection probability at 0·85 (95% CRI 0·74, 0·94), and six water samples from a pond were necessary for a cumulative detection probability >95%. A simulation study showed that when using site occupancy analysis, researchers need many fewer samples to reliably estimate presence and absence of species than without use of site occupancy modelling. Our analyses demonstrate the benefits of site occupancy models as a simple and powerful tool to estimate detection and site occupancy (species prevalence) probabilities despite imperfect detection. As species detection from eDNA becomes more common, adoption of appropriate statistical methods, such as site occupancy models, will become crucial to ensure that reliable inferences are made from eDNA‐based surveys.
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
General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations
Brooks, S. P., & Gelman, A. (1998) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787 · Cited by 6,045
ESTIMATING ABUNDANCE FROM REPEATED PRESENCE–ABSENCE DATA OR POINT COUNTS
Royle, J. A., & Nichols, J. D. (2003) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0777:eafrpa]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,364
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
Shifting up a gear with iDNA : From mammal detection events to standardised surveys
Abrams, J. F., Hörig, L. A., Brozovic, R., Axtner, J., Crampton‐Platt, A., Mohamed, A., Wong, S. T., Sollmann, R., Yu, D. W., & Wilting, A. (2019) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13411 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Schmidt, B. R., Kéry, M., Ursenbacher, S., Hyman, O. J., & Collins, J. P.
- Venue
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-04-29
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 646-653
- ISSN
- 2041-210X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2057397238
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.25
- 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: Site occupancy models in the analysis of environmental DNA presence/absence surveys: a case study of an emerging amphibian pathogen. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/2041-210x.12052
- The paper
- Schmidt, B. R., Kéry, M., Ursenbacher, S., Hyman, O. J., & Collins, J. P. (2013). Site occupancy models in the analysis of environmental DNA presence/absence surveys: a case study of an emerging amphibian pathogen. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12052
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.