The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improved detection of an alien invasive species through environmental DNA barcoding: the example of the American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus
Abstract
Summary: 1. Alien invasive species (AIS) are one of the major causes of biodiversity loss and global homogenization. Once an AIS becomes established, costs of control can be extremely high and complete eradication is not always achieved. The ability to detect a species at a low density greatly improves the success of eradication and decreases both the costs of control and the impact on ecosystems. 2. In this study, we compare the sensitivity of traditional field methods, based on auditory and visual encounter surveys, with an environmental DNA (eDNA) survey for the detection of the American bullfrog Rana catesbeiana = Lithobates catesbeianus, which is invasive in south‐western France. 3. We demonstrate that the eDNA method is valuable for species detection and surpasses traditional amphibian survey methods in terms of sensitivity and sampling effort. The bullfrog was detected in 38 sites using the molecular method, compared with seven sites using the diurnal and nocturnal surveys, suggesting that traditional field surveys have strongly underestimated the distribution of the American bullfrog. 4. Synthesis and applications. The environmental DNA approach permits the early detection of alien invasive species (AIS), at very low densities and at any life stage, which is particularly important for the detection of rare and/or secretive aquatic species. This method can also be used to confirm the sensitivity of control operations and to better identify the distributions of vulnerable species, making this a very relevant tool for species inventory and management.
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
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR
Taberlet, P. (1996) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/24.16.3189 · Cited by 1,491
Self-citationInvasive Species, Environmental Change and Management, and Health
Pyšek, P., & Richardson, D. M. (2010) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-033009-095548 · Cited by 1,406
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
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
Self-citationAncient and modern environmental DNA
Pedersen, M. W., Overballe-Petersen, S., Ermini, L., Sarkissian, C. D., Haile, J., Hellstrom, M., Spens, J., Thomsen, P. F., Bohmann, K., Cappellini, E., et al. (2015) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0383 · Cited by 329
Seasonal variation in environmental DNA in relation to population size and environmental factors
Buxton, A. S., Groombridge, J. J., Zakaria, N. B., & Griffiths, R. A. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep46294 · Cited by 203
Environmental DNA as an efficient tool for detecting invasive crayfishes in freshwater ponds
Mauvisseau, Q., Coignet, A., Delaunay, C., Pinet, F., Bouchon, D., & Souty-Grosset, C. (2018) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/s10750-017-3288-y · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Dejean, T., Valentini, A., Miquel, C., Taberlet, P., Bellemain, E., & Miaud, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-07-05
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 953-959
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W1501319480
- Cited by
- 557
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 22.26
- 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
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.