Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25874630›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling improves occurrence and detection estimates of invasive burmese pythons.

Margaret E Hunter, Sara J Oyler-McCance, Robert M Dorazio, Jennifer A Fike, Brian J Smith, Charles T Hunter, Robert N Reed, Kristen M Hart

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed
16.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 221 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Combining surface and soil environmental DNA with artificial cover objects to improve terrestrial reptile survey detection.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Strategic considerations for invasive species managers in the utilization of environmental DNA (eDNA): steps for incorporating this powerful surveillance tool.Management of biological invasions : international journal of applied research on biological invasions · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Margaret E HunterUS Geological Survey, Southeast Ecological Science Center, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Sara J Oyler-McCanceUS Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Robert M DorazioUS Geological Survey, Southeast Ecological Science Center, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Jennifer A FikeUS Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Brian J SmithUniversity of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Charles T HunterUniversity of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Horticultural Sciences, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Robert N ReedUS Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Kristen M HartUS Geological Survey, Southeast Ecological Science Center, Davie, Florida, United States of America.
Fort Collins Science CenterUnited States Geological Survey · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods are used to detect DNA that is shed into the aquatic environment by cryptic or low density species. Applied in eDNA studies, occupancy models can be used to estimate occurrence and detection probabilities and thereby account for imperfect detection. However, occupancy terminology has been applied inconsistently in eDNA studies, and many have calculated occurrence probabilities while not considering the effects of imperfect detection. Low detection of invasive giant constrictors using visual surveys and traps has hampered the estimation of occupancy and detection estimates needed for population management in southern Florida, USA. Giant constrictor snakes pose a threat to native species and the ecological restoration of the Florida Everglades. To assist with detection, we developed species-specific eDNA assays using quantitative PCR (qPCR) for the Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus), Northern African python (P. sebae), boa constrictor (Boa constrictor), and the green (Eunectes murinus) and yellow anaconda (E. notaeus). Burmese pythons, Northern African pythons, and boa constrictors are established and reproducing, while the green and yellow anaconda have the potential to become established. We validated the python and boa constrictor assays using laboratory trials and tested all species in 21 field locations distributed in eight southern Florida regions. Burmese python eDNA was detected in 37 of 63 field sampling events; however, the other species were not detected. Although eDNA was heterogeneously distributed in the environment, occupancy models were able to provide the first estimates of detection probabilities, which were greater than 91%. Burmese python eDNA was detected along the leading northern edge of the known population boundary. The development of informative detection tools and eDNA occupancy models can improve conservation efforts in southern Florida and support more extensive studies of invasive constrictors. Generic sampling design and terminology are proposed to standardize and clarify interpretations of eDNA-based occupancy models.

Indexed as

EcologyMetagenomicsAnimalsBoidaeDNAFloridaIntroduced SpeciesSpecies SpecificityDNA

Identifiers

PMID25874630
PMCPMC4398459
OpenAlexW2043180486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.