Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31017960›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Concurrent visual encounter sampling validates eDNA selectivity and sensitivity for the endangered wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta).

Thomas S Akre, Lillian D Parker, Ellery Ruther, Jesus E Maldonado, Lorien Lemmon, Nancy Rotzel McInerney

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Thomas S AkreConservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5854-0603
Lillian D ParkerCenter for Conservation Genomics, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Ellery RutherConservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, Virginia, United States of America.
Jesus E MaldonadoCenter for Conservation Genomics, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Lorien LemmonNational Ecological Observatory Network, Front Royal, Virginia, United States of America.
Nancy Rotzel McInerneyCenter for Conservation Genomics, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Washington, DC, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) has been used to record the presence of many different organisms in several different aquatic and terrestrial environments. Although eDNA has been demonstrated as a useful tool for the detection of invasive and/or cryptic and declining species, this approach is subject to the same considerations that limit the interpretation of results from traditional survey techniques (e.g. imperfect detection). The wood turtle is a cryptic semi-aquatic species that is declining across its range and, like so many chelonian species, is in-need of a rapid and effective method for monitoring distribution and abundance. To meet this need, we used an eDNA approach to sample for wood turtle presence in northern Virginia streams. At the same time, we used repeat visual encounter surveys in an occupancy-modelling framework to validate our eDNA results and reveal the relationship of detection and occupancy for both methods. We sampled 37 stream reaches of varying size within and beyond the known distribution of the wood turtle across northern Virginia. Wood turtle occupancy probability was 0.54 (0.31, 0.76) and while detection probability for wood turtle occupancy was high (0.88; 0.58, 0.98), our detection of turtle abundance was markedly lower (0.28; 0.21, 0.37). We detected eDNA at 76% of sites confirmed occupied by VES and at an additional three sites where turtles were not detected but were known to occur. Environmental DNA occupancy probability was 0.55 (0.29, 0.78); directly comparable to the VES occupancy estimate. Higher probabilities of detecting wood turtle eDNA were associated with higher turtle densities, an increasing number of days since the last rainfall, lower water temperatures, and lower relative discharges. Our results suggest that eDNA technology holds promise for sampling aquatic chelonians in some systems, even when discharge is high and biomass is relatively low, when the approach is validated and sampling error is quantified.

Indexed as

Endangered SpeciesAnimalsAquatic OrganismsBiomassCosts and Cost AnalysisDNA, EnvironmentalEnvironmental MonitoringPopulation DynamicsProbabilityRiversTurtlesVirginiaDNA, Environmental

Identifiers

PMID31017960
PMCPMC6481842

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.