ArticlePloS one2018
Seasonal variation in environmental DNA detection in sediment and water samples.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 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
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using environmental DNA to identify emerging Pacific salmon habitats and support Indigenous governance.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026Article
- Integrating Water Column and Sediment eDNA Metabarcoding Reveals Seasonal Turnover and Habitat-Specific Differentiation of Fish Communities in a Subtropical Coastal Bay.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Comparing Aquatic Environmental DNA, Microscopy and Sedimentary DNA to Investigate Cyanobacterial Community Dynamics Across a Trophic Gradient.Microbial ecology · 2026Article
- Unveiling Vertebrate Biodiversity in Arid and Semi-Arid Terrestrial Ecosystems Through eDNA Metabarcoding at Savanna Waterholes.Evolutionary applications · 2026Article
- Seasonal Differences in Fish Community Structure in the Upper Yangtze River Based on eDNA Metabarcoding: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Aquatic eDNA outperforms sedimentary eDNA for the detection of estuarine fish communities in subtropical coastal vegetated ecosystems.Journal of fish biology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Environmental DNA Metabarcoding and Underwater Visual Census for Assessing Macrobenthic Diversity.Biology · 2025Article
- Artificial Waterbodies: A Valuable Source of eDNA for Detecting Threatened Birds.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Laboratory and In-Field Metagenomics for Environmental Monitoring.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- 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
- Environmental DNA analysis for macro-organisms: species distribution and more.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2022Review
- In-situ sequencing reveals the effect of storage on lacustrine sediment microbiome demographics and functionality.Environmental microbiome · 2022Article
- Reliability of environmental DNA surveys to detect pond occupancy by newts at a national scale.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Environmental DNA from Marine Waters and Substrates: Protocols for Sampling and eDNA Extraction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Spatio-temporal variability of eDNA signal and its implication for fish monitoring in lakes.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Development of droplet digital Polymerase Chain Reaction assays for the detection of long-finned (PeerJ · 2021Article
- Article
- Got Glycogen?: Development and Multispecies Validation of the Novel Preserve, Precipitate, Lyse, Precipitate, Purify (PPLPP) Workflow for Environmental DNA Extraction from Longmire's Preserved Water Samples.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2020Article
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 aquatic environmental DNA (eDNA) to detect the presence of species depends on the seasonal activity of the species in the sampled habitat. eDNA may persist in sediments for longer than it does in water, and analysing sediment could potentially extend the seasonal window for species assessment. Using the great crested newt as a model, we compare how detection probability changes across the seasons in eDNA samples collected from both pond water and pond sediments. Detection of both aquatic and sedimentary eDNA varied through the year, peaking in the summer (July), with its lowest point in the winter (January): in all seasons, detection probability of eDNA from water exceeded that from sediment. Detection probability of eDNA also varied between study areas, and according to great crested newt habitat suitability and sediment type. As aquatic and sedimentary eDNA show the same seasonal fluctuations, the patterns observed in both sample types likely reflect current or recent presence of the target species. However, given the low detection probabilities found in the autumn and winter we would not recommend using either aquatic or sedimentary eDNA for year-round sampling without further refinement and testing of the methods.
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.