ArticleMolecular ecology resources2016
Making environmental DNA count.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Composition, Influencing Factors, and Effects on Host Nutrient Metabolism of Fungi in Gastrointestinal Tract of Monogastric Animals.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Uncontrolled deforestation and population growth threaten a tropical island's water and land resources in only 10 years.Science advances · 2024Article
- Quantitative environmental DNA metabarcoding shows high potential as a novel approach to quantitatively assess fish community.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Seeing through sedimented waters: environmental DNA reduces the phantom diversity of sharks and rays in turbid marine habitats.BMC ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Environmental DNA reveals tropical shark diversity in contrasting levels of anthropogenic impact.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Environmental DNA from Seawater Samples Correlate with Trawl Catches of Subarctic, Deepwater Fishes.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The arc of reception for a new technology or method--like the reception of new information itself--can pass through predictable stages, with audiences' responses evolving from 'I don't believe it', through 'well, maybe' to 'yes, everyone knows that' to, finally, 'old news'. The idea that one can sample a volume of water, sequence DNA out of it, and report what species are living nearby has experienced roughly this series of responses among biologists, beginning with the microbial biologists who developed genetic techniques to reveal the unseen microbiome. 'Macrobial' biologists and ecologists--those accustomed to dealing with species they can see and count--have been slower to adopt such molecular survey techniques, in part because of the uncertain relationship between the number of recovered DNA sequences and the abundance of whole organisms in the sampled environment. In this issue of Molecular Ecology Resources, Evans et al. (2015) quantify this relationship for a suite of nine vertebrate species consisting of eight fish and one amphibian. Having detected all of the species present with a molecular toolbox of six primer sets, they consistently find DNA abundances are associated with species' biomasses. The strength and slope of this association vary for each species and each primer set--further evidence that there is no universal parameter linking recovered DNA to species abundance--but Evans and colleagues take a significant step towards being able to answer the next question audiences tend to ask: 'Yes, but how many are there?'
Indexed as
Identifiers
26768195What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.