The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Species detection using environmental DNA (eDNA) has tremendous potential for contributing to the understanding of the ecology and conservation of aquatic species. Detecting species using eDNA methods, rather than directly sampling the organisms, can reduce impacts on sensitive species and increase the power of field surveys for rare and elusive species. The sensitivity of eDNA methods, however, requires a heightened awareness and attention to quality assurance and quality control protocols. Additionally, the interpretation of eDNA data demands careful consideration of multiple factors. As eDNA methods have grown in application, diverse approaches have been implemented to address these issues. With interest in eDNA continuing to expand, supportive guidelines for undertaking eDNA studies are greatly needed. Environmental DNA researchers from around the world have collaborated to produce this set of guidelines and considerations for implementing eDNA methods to detect aquatic macroorganisms. Critical considerations for study design include preventing contamination in the field and the laboratory, choosing appropriate sample analysis methods, validating assays, testing for sample inhibition and following minimum reporting guidelines. Critical considerations for inference include temporal and spatial processes, limits of correlation of eDNA with abundance, uncertainty of positive and negative results, and potential sources of allochthonous DNA. We present a synthesis of knowledge at this stage for application of this new and powerful detection method.
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
The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments
Bustin, S. A., Benes, V., Garson, J. A., Hellemans, J., Huggett, J., Kubista, M., Mueller, R., Nolan, T., Pfaffl, M. W., Shipley, G. L., et al. (2009) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2008.112797 · Cited by 16,303
Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA
Lindahl, T. (1993) · Nature · doi:10.1038/362709a0 · Cited by 5,679
Environmental genome shotgun sequencing of the sargasso sea
Venter, J. C., Remington, K., Heidelberg, J. F., Halpern, A. L., Rusch, D., Eisen, J. A., Wu, D., Paulsen, I., Nelson, K. E., Nelson, W., et al. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1093857 · Cited by 4,376
Taylor, C. F., Field, D., Sansone, S.-A., Aerts, J., Apweiler, R., Ashburner, M., Ball, C. A., Binz, P.-A., Bogue, M., Booth, T., et al. (2008) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1411 · Cited by 558 · cited 2×
“Progress through such periods accelerates when scientists publish detailed information about their field, laboratory and bioinformatic procedures (Taylor et al. 2008).”
BackgroundEvaluation of Methods for the Extraction and Purification of DNA from the Human Microbiome
Yuan, S., Cohen, D. B., Ravel, J., Abdo, Z., & Forney, L. J. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033865 · Cited by 511
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
Stadhouders, R., Pas, S. D., Anber, J., Voermans, J., Mes, T. H. M., & Schutten, M. (2010) · The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.2353/jmoldx.2010.090035 · Cited by 399
Cited by
Ames, C. L., Ohdera, A. H., Colston, S. M., Collins, A. G., Fitt, W. K., Morandini, A. C., Erickson, J. S., & Vora, G. J. (2021) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.640527 · Cited by 58
Keel, D. J., Karpenko, K., Blankenship, S. M., Schumer, G., O’Rourke, O., Ostberg, C. O., Chase, D. A., & Duda, J. J. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-07042-1 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Goldberg, C. S., Turner, C. R., Deiner, K., Klymus, K. E., Thomsen, P. F., Murphy, M. A., Spear, S. F., McKee, A., Oyler‐McCance, S. J., Cornman, R. S., Laramie, M. B., Mahon, A. R., Lance, R. F., Pilliod, D. S., Strickler, K. M., Waits, L. P., Fremier, A. K., Takahara, T., Herder, J. E., & Taberlet, P.
- Venue
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-07-22
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1299-1307
- ISSN
- 2041-210X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2398092094
- Cited by
- 1,030
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 64.45
- 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: Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/2041-210x.12595
- The paper
- Goldberg, C. S., Turner, C. R., Deiner, K., Klymus, K. E., Thomsen, P. F., Murphy, M. A., Spear, S. F., McKee, A., Oyler‐McCance, S. J., Cornman, R. S., Laramie, M. B., Mahon, A. R., Lance, R. F., Pilliod, D. S., Strickler, K. M., Waits, L. P., Fremier, A. K., Takahara, T., Herder, J. E., & Taberlet, P. (2016). Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12595
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.