The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating occupancy and abundance of stream amphibians using environmental DNA from filtered water samples
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods for detecting aquatic species are advancing rapidly, but with little evaluation of field protocols or precision of resulting estimates. We compared sampling results from traditional field methods with eDNA methods for two amphibians in 13 streams in central Idaho, USA. We also evaluated three water collection protocols and the influence of sampling location, time of day, and distance from animals on eDNA concentration in the water. We found no difference in detection or amount of eDNA among water collection protocols. eDNA methods had slightly higher detection rates than traditional field methods, particularly when species occurred at low densities. eDNA concentration was positively related to field-measured density, biomass, and proportion of transects occupied. Precision of eDNA-based abundance estimates increased with the amount of eDNA in the water and the number of replicate subsamples collected. eDNA concentration did not vary significantly with sample location in the stream, time of day, or distance downstream from animals. Our results further advance the implementation of eDNA methods for monitoring aquatic vertebrates in stream habitats.
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
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
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
Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities
Deiner, K., Bik, H. M., Mächler, E., Seymour, M., Lacoursière‐Roussel, A., Altermatt, F., Creer, S., Bista, I., Lodge, D. M., de Vere, N., et al. (2017) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14350 · Cited by 1,918
Environmental Conditions Influence eDNA Persistence in Aquatic Systems
Barnes, M. A., Turner, C. R., Jerde, C. L., Renshaw, M. A., Chadderton, W. L., & Lodge, D. M. (2014) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es404734p · Cited by 939
Hänfling, B., Lawson Handley, L., Read, D. S., Hahn, C., Li, J., Nichols, P., Blackman, R. C., Oliver, A., & Winfield, I. J. (2016) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.13660 · Cited by 567
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Pilliod, D. S., Goldberg, C. S., Arkle, R. S., & Waits, L. P.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2013-08
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1123-1130
- ISSN
- 0706-652X (ISSN-L)
- 1205-7533
- OpenAlex
- W2000256327
- Cited by
- 602
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 29.64
- 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: Estimating occupancy and abundance of stream amphibians using environmental DNA from filtered water samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/cjfas-2013-0047
- The paper
- Pilliod, D. S., Goldberg, C. S., Arkle, R. S., & Waits, L. P. (2013). Estimating occupancy and abundance of stream amphibians using environmental DNA from filtered water samples. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2013-0047
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.
