Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33370371›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Influence of sediment and stream transport on detecting a source of environmental DNA.

Meredith B Nevers, Kasia Przybyla-Kelly, Dawn Shively, Charles C Morris, Joshua Dickey, Murulee N Byappanahalli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Estimating number of European eel (Ecology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Meredith B NeversGreat Lakes Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Chesterton, Indiana, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6963-6734
Kasia Przybyla-KellyGreat Lakes Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Chesterton, Indiana, United States of America.
Dawn ShivelyGreat Lakes Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Chesterton, Indiana, United States of America.
Charles C MorrisIndiana Dunes National Park, National Park Service, Porter, Indiana, United States of America.
Joshua DickeyIndiana Dunes National Park, National Park Service, Porter, Indiana, United States of America.
Murulee N ByappanahalliGreat Lakes Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Chesterton, Indiana, United States of America.
United States Geological Survey · USNational Park Service · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) can be used for early detection, population estimations, and assessment of potential spread of invasive species, but questions remain about factors that influence eDNA detection results. Efforts are being made to understand how physical, chemical, and biological factors-settling, resuspension, dispersion, eDNA stability/decay-influence eDNA estimations and potentially population abundance. In a series of field and controlled mesocosm experiments, we examined the detection and accumulation of eDNA in sediment and water and the transport of eDNA in a small stream in the Lake Michigan watershed, using the invasive round goby fish (Neogobius melanostomus) as a DNA source. Experiment 1: caged fish (average n = 44) were placed in a stream devoid of round goby; water was collected over 24 hours along 120-m of stream, including a simultaneous sampling event at 7 distances from DNA source; stream monitoring continued for 24 hours after fish were removed. Experiment 2: round goby were placed in laboratory tanks; water and sediment were collected over 14 days and for another 150 days post-fish removal to calculate eDNA shedding and decay rates for water and sediment. For samples from both experiments, DNA was extracted, and qPCR targeted a cytochrome oxidase I gene (COI) fragment specific to round goby. Results indicated that eDNA accumulated and decayed more slowly in sediment than water. In the stream, DNA shedding was markedly lower than calculated in the laboratory, but models indicate eDNA could potentially travel long distances (up to 50 km) under certain circumstances. Collectively, these findings show that the interactive effects of ambient conditions (e.g., eDNA stability and decay, hydrology, settling-resuspension) are important to consider when developing comprehensive models. Results of this study can help resource managers target representative sites downstream of potential invasion sites, thereby maximizing resource use.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringIntroduced SpeciesLakesAnimalsDNA, EnvironmentalFishesDNA, Environmental

Identifiers

PMID33370371
PMCPMC7769486
OpenAlexW3116631662

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.