The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Persistence of DNA in Carcasses, Slime and Avian Feces May Affect Interpretation of Environmental DNA Data
Open accessAbstract
The prevention of non-indigenous aquatic invasive species spreading into new areas is a goal of many resource managers. New techniques have been developed to survey for species that are difficult to capture with conventional gears that involve the detection of their DNA in water samples (eDNA). This technique is currently used to track the invasion of bigheaded carps (silver carp and bighead carp; Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and H. nobilis) in the Chicago Area Waterway System and Upper Mississippi River. In both systems DNA has been detected from silver carp without the capture of a live fish, which has led to some uncertainty about the source of the DNA. The potential contribution to eDNA by vectors and fomites has not been explored. Because barges move from areas with a high abundance of bigheaded carps to areas monitored for the potential presence of silver carp, we used juvenile silver carp to simulate the barge transport of dead bigheaded carp carcasses, slime residue, and predator feces to determine the potential of these sources to supply DNA to uninhabited waters where it could be detected and misinterpreted as indicative of the presence of live bigheaded carp. Our results indicate that all three vectors are feasible sources of detectable eDNA for at least one month after their deposition. This suggests that current monitoring programs must consider alternative vectors of DNA in the environment and consider alternative strategies to minimize the detection of DNA not directly released from live bigheaded carps.
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
Detusking Fence-Breaker Elephants as an Approach in Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation
Mutinda, M., Chenge, G., Gakuya, F., Otiende, M., Omondi, P., Kasiki, S., Soriguer, R. C., & Alasaad, S. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091749 · Cited by 111
Cited by
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
Rourke, M. L., Fowler, A. M., Hughes, J. M., Broadhurst, M. K., DiBattista, J. D., Fielder, S., Wilkes Walburn, J., & Furlan, E. M. (2022) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.185 · Cited by 435
Wilcox, T. M., McKelvey, K. S., Young, M. K., Sepulveda, A. J., Shepard, B. B., Jane, S. F., Whiteley, A. R., Lowe, W. H., & Schwartz, M. K. (2016) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.023 · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Authors
- Merkes, C. M., McCalla, S. G., Jensen, N. R., Gaikowski, M. P., & Amberg, J. J.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-11-17
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e113346
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2015290326
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Persistence of DNA in Carcasses, Slime and Avian Feces May Affect Interpretation of Environmental DNA Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0113346
- The paper
- Merkes, C. M., McCalla, S. G., Jensen, N. R., Gaikowski, M. P., & Amberg, J. J. (2014). Persistence of DNA in Carcasses, Slime and Avian Feces May Affect Interpretation of Environmental DNA Data. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113346
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.