ArticleEcology and evolution2021
Meta-analysis shows that environmental DNA outperforms traditional surveys, but warrants better reporting standards.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- pH-Dependent Degradation of Macrobial Environmental DNA in Water.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Meta-analysis shows both congruence and complementarity of DNA and eDNA metabarcoding to traditional methods for biological community assessment.Molecular ecology · 2022Pooled it
- Using Community Science and eDNA to Inform a State-Designed Marine Protected Area Monitoring Program: A Case Study from Malibu, California.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Impact of Rainfall on Aquatic and Terrestrial Species Monitoring Using Riverine Environmental DNA.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- One Assay to Rule Them All: Development of a Global Environmental DNA Tool to Support Range-Wide Surveys of an Imperiled Sawfish and Its Application in the Eastern Tropical Pacific.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Fine-Scale Ecological Biomonitoring in a Large, Complex Agriculturally Impacted Watershed via eDNA Metabarcoding.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Comparative Multi-Marker Environmental DNA Metabarcoding of Marine Metazoan Communities: Water vs. Sediment.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- A Breath of Fresh Air: A Novel Passive Airborne eDNA Approach for Scalable Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Fungal ecology in the age of 'omics.The New phytologist · 2026Review
- Widespread adoption of environmental DNA (eDNA)-based biodiversity monitoring in Canada will depend on trust more than on education: insights from a SWOT analysis.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2026Article
- Nine changes needed to deliver a radical transformation in biodiversity measurement.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Environmental DNA metabarcoding facilitates integrative conservation assessments and species rediscoveries in tropical biodiversity hotspots.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Detection of Echinococcus multilocularis in coyotes in Washington State, USA highlights need for increased wildlife surveillance.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- From fish to invertebrates: multi-marker eDNA metabarcoding for monitoring wetland biodiversity and non-indigenous species in Macao SAR China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Unveiling Vertebrate Biodiversity in Arid and Semi-Arid Terrestrial Ecosystems Through eDNA Metabarcoding at Savanna Waterholes.Evolutionary applications · 2026Article
- Article
- Environmental DNA screening of Phocoenobacter atlanticus subsp. atlanticus in Atlantic salmon aquaculture.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Use of Environmental DNA as a Method to Determine Occupancy and Distribution of Coeur d'Alene Salamanders in Montana.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Airborne eDNA captures three decades of ecosystem biodiversity.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decades of environmental DNA (eDNA) method application, spanning a wide variety of taxa and habitats, has advanced our understanding of eDNA and underlined its value as a tool for conservation practitioners. The general consensus is that eDNA methods are more accurate and cost-effective than traditional survey methods. However, they are formally approved for just a few species globally (e.g., Bighead Carp, Silver Carp, Great Crested Newt). We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that directly compare eDNA with traditional surveys to evaluate the assertion that eDNA methods are consistently "better."Environmental DNA publications for multiple species or single macro-organism detection were identified using the Web of Science, by searching "eDNA" and "environmental DNA" across papers published between 1970 and 2020. The methods used, focal taxa, habitats surveyed, and quantitative and categorical results were collated and analyzed to determine whether and under what circumstances eDNA outperforms traditional surveys.Results show that eDNA methods are cheaper, more sensitive, and detect more species than traditional methods. This is, however, taxa-dependent, with amphibians having the highest potential for detection by eDNA survey. Perhaps most strikingly, of the 535 papers reviewed just 49 quantified the probability of detection for both eDNA and traditional survey methods and studies were three times more likely to give qualitative statements of performance.
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.