ArticleScientific reports2021
Optimising sampling and analysis protocols in environmental DNA studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making eDNA more digestible: A pizza analogy for understanding false negatives and occupancy modeling.Bioscience · 2026Review
- Operationalising Environmental DNA (eDNA) Detection of Major Malaria Vector Species in Ghana.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Micropropagules in Seawater During the 2020 Green Tide Outbreak in the Southern Yellow Sea.Biology · 2026Article
- Catching common carp with eDNA in Thailand's rivers.iScience · 2026Article
- Network dynamics revealed from eDNA highlight seasonal variation in urban mammal communities.The Journal of animal ecology · 2025Article
- Harnessing eDNA technology to identify fish diversity and distribution in the Kashi River, a tributary of the Ili River, Xinjiang, China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Navigating Methodological Trade-Offs in eDNA Metabarcoding Biodiversity Monitoring: Insights From a Mediterranean Watershed.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Unraveling Fish Community Diversity and Structure in the Yellow Sea: Evidence from Environmental DNA Metabarcoding and Bottom Trawling.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Navigating uncertainty in environmental DNA detection of a nuisance marine macroalga.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- More than presence-absence; modelling (e)DNA concentration across time and space from qPCR survey data.Journal of statistical theory and practice · 2025Article
- No pump, no problem: evaluating passive eDNA sampling for marine biomonitoring of a nuisance macroalga.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Comparison of qPCR and metabarcoding for environmental DNA surveillance of a freshwater parasite.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Article
- A validated protocol for eDNA-based monitoring of within-species genetic diversity in a pond-breeding amphibian.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Fungal communities on alpine cheese rinds in Southern Switzerland.Botanical studies · 2023Article
- Comparison of materials for rapid passive collection of environmental DNA.Molecular ecology resources · 2022Article
- A review of applications of environmental DNA for reptile conservation and management.Ecology and evolution · 2022Review
- Effects of sampling strategies and DNA extraction methods on eDNA metabarcoding: A case study of estuarine fish diversity monitoring.Zoological research · 2022Article
- Reliability of environmental DNA surveys to detect pond occupancy by newts at a national scale.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecological surveys risk incurring false negative and false positive detections of the target species. With indirect survey methods, such as environmental DNA, such error can occur at two stages: sample collection and laboratory analysis. Here we analyse a large qPCR based eDNA data set using two occupancy models, one of which accounts for false positive error by Griffin et al. (J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 69: 377-392, 2020), and a second that assumes no false positive error by Stratton et al. (Methods Ecol Evol 11: 1113-1120, 2020). Additionally, we apply the Griffin et al. (2020) model to simulated data to determine optimal levels of replication at both sampling stages. The Stratton et al. (2020) model, which assumes no false positive results, consistently overestimated both overall and individual site occupancy compared to both the Griffin et al. (2020) model and to previous estimates of pond occupancy for the target species. The inclusion of replication at both stages of eDNA analysis (sample collection and in the laboratory) reduces both bias and credible interval width in estimates of both occupancy and detectability. Even the collection of > 1 sample from a site can improve parameter estimates more than having a high number of replicates only within the laboratory analysis.
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.