Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31744434›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2019

Predicting the fate of eDNA in the environment and implications for studying biodiversity.

Jori B Harrison, Jennifer M Sunday, Sean M Rogers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

111 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Fish diversity and community turnover across protection zones in multiuse marine protected areas.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Jori B HarrisonDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Jennifer M SundayDepartment of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Sean M RogersDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) applications are transforming the standard of characterizing aquatic biodiversity via the presence, location and abundance of DNA collected from environmental samples. As eDNA studies use DNA fragments as a proxy for the presence of organisms, the ecological properties of the complex and dynamic environments from which eDNA is sampled need to be considered for accurate biological interpretation. In this review, we discuss the role that differing environments play on the major processes that eDNA undergoes between organism and collection, including shedding, decay and transport. We focus on a mechanistic understanding of these processes and highlight how decay and transport models are being developed towards more accurate and robust predictions of the fate of eDNA. We conclude with five recommendations for eDNA researchers and practitioners, to advance current best practices, as well as to support a future model of eDNA spatio-temporal persistence.

Indexed as

BiodiversityEnvironmentConservation of Natural ResourcesDNA, EnvironmentalDNA, Environmentalaquatic biodiversitybiodiversityeDNA decayeDNA transportenvironmental DNAtaphonomy

Identifiers

PMID31744434
PMCPMC6892050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.