Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 534

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Particle size distribution and optimal capture of aqueous macrobial eDNA

Open access
Turner, Cameron R., Barnes, Matthew A., Xu, Charles C. Y., Jones, Stuart E., Jerde, Christopher L., Lodge, David M.·2014·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

Summary: Using environmental DNA ( eDNA ) to detect aquatic macroorganisms is a new survey method with broad applicability. However, the origin, state and fate of aqueous macrobial eDNA – which collectively determine how well eDNA can serve as a proxy for directly observing organisms and how eDNA should be captured, purified and assayed – are poorly understood. The size of aquatic particles provides clues about their origin, state and fate. We used sequential filtration size fractionation to measure the particle size distribution (PSD) of macrobial eDNA , specifically Common Carp (hereafter referred to as Carp) eDNA . We compared it to the PSDs of total eDNA (from all organisms) and suspended particle matter (SPM). We quantified Carp mitochondrial eDNA using a custom qPCR assay, total eDNA with fluorometry and SPM with gravimetric analysis. In a lake and a pond, we found Carp eDNA in particles from >180 to <0·2 μm, but it was most abundant from 1 to 10 μm. Total eDNA was most abundant below 0·2 μm, and SPM was most abundant above 100 μm. SPM consisted of ≤0·1% total eDNA , and total eDNA consisted of ≤0·0004% Carp eDNA . 0·2 μm filtration maximized Carp eDNA capture (85% ± 6%) while minimizing total (i.e. non‐target) eDNA capture (48% ± 3%), but filter clogging limited this pore size to a sample volume <250 mL . To mitigate this limitation, we estimated a continuous PSD model for Carp eDNA and derived an equation for calculating isoclines of pore size and water volume that yield equivalent amounts of Carp eDNA . Our results suggest that aqueous macrobial eDNA predominantly exists inside mitochondria or cells, and that settling may therefore play an important role in its fate. For optimal eDNA capture, we recommend 0·2 μm filtration or a combination of larger pore size and water volume that exceeds the 0·2 μm isocline. In situ filtration of large volumes could maximize detection probability when surveying large habitats for rare organisms. Our method for eDNA particle size analysis enables future research to compare the PSDs of eDNA from other organisms and environments, and to easily apply them for ecological monitoring.

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 · 10.1111/2041-210x.12206

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

See all 534

Metadata

Authors
Turner, C. R., Barnes, M. A., Xu, C. C. Y., Jones, S. E., Jerde, C. L., & Lodge, D. M.
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06-16
Volume
5
Issue
7
Pages
676-684
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2179733967
Cited by
534
References
0
FWCI
22.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Particle size distribution and optimal capture of aqueous macrobial eDNA. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/2041-210x.12206
The paper
Turner, C. R., Barnes, M. A., Xu, C. C. Y., Jones, S. E., Jerde, C. L., & Lodge, D. M. (2014). Particle size distribution and optimal capture of aqueous macrobial eDNA. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12206

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.