ArticlePloS one2017
Is the detection of aquatic environmental DNA influenced by substrate type?
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing detectability of the endangered fan mussel using eDNA and ddPCR.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Detection of vertebrates from natural and artificial inland water bodies in a semi-arid habitat using eDNA from filtered, swept, and sediment samples.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Optimal sample type and number vary in small shallow lakes when targeting non-native fish environmental DNA.PeerJ · 2023Article
- Meta-analysis shows that environmental DNA outperforms traditional surveys, but warrants better reporting standards.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Exploration of Environmental DNA (eDNA) to Detect Kirtland's Snake (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Organic matter reduces the amount of detectable environmental DNA in freshwater.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Spatial and temporal patterns of environmental DNA detection to inform sampling protocols in lentic and lotic systems.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Influence of sediment and stream transport on detecting a source of environmental DNA.PloS one · 2020Article
- Predicting the fate of eDNA in the environment and implications for studying biodiversity.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Review
- Environmental DNA size sorting and degradation experiment indicates the state of Daphnia magna mitochondrial and nuclear eDNA is subcellular.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Conventional versus real-time quantitative PCR for rare species detection.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Environmental DNA filtration techniques affect recovered biodiversity.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of environmental DNA (eDNA) to assess the presence-absence of rare, cryptic or invasive species is hindered by a poor understanding of the factors that can remove DNA from the system. In aquatic systems, eDNA can be transported out either horizontally in water flows or vertically by incorporation into the sediment. Equally, eDNA may be broken down by various biotic and abiotic processes if the target organism leaves the system. We use occupancy modelling and a replicated mesocosm experiment to examine how detection probability of eDNA changes once the target species is no longer present. We hypothesise that detection probability falls faster with a sediment which has a large number of DNA binding sites such as topsoil or clay, over lower DNA binding capacity substrates such as sand. Water removed from ponds containing the target species (the great crested newt) initially showed high detection probabilities, but these fell to between 40% and 60% over the first 10 days and to between 10% and 22% by day 15: eDNA remained detectable at very low levels until day 22. Very little difference in detection was observed between the control group (no substrate) and the sand substrate. A small reduction in detection probability was observed between the control and clay substrates, but this was not significant. However, a highly significant reduction in detection probability was observed with a topsoil substrate. This result is likely to have stemmed from increased levels of PCR inhibition, suggesting that incorporation of DNA into the sentiment is of only limited importance. Surveys of aquatic species using eDNA clearly need to take account of substrate type as well as other environmental factors when collecting samples, analysing data and interpreting the results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.