ArticlePloS one2021
Short-lived detection of an introduced vertebrate eDNA signal in a nearshore rocky reef environment.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- eDNA Metabarcoding Reveals Diel Connectivity Dynamics of Fish Communities in Xincun Lagoon, Hainan.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Article
- DNA State Influences the Uptake and Persistence of Environmental DNA by Marine Sponge Natural Samplers.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Detecting kelp-forest associated metazoan biodiversity with eDNA metabarcoding.npj biodiversity · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- eDNA captures depth partitioning in a kelp forest ecosystem.PloS one · 2021Article
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
Environmental DNA (eDNA) is increasingly used to measure biodiversity of marine ecosystems, yet key aspects of the temporal dynamics of eDNA remain unknown. Of particular interest is in situ persistence of eDNA signals in dynamic marine environments, as eDNA degradation rates have predominantly been quantified through mesocosm studies. To determine in situ eDNA residence times, we introduced an eDNA signal from a non-native fish into a protected bay of a Southern California rocky reef ecosystem, and then measured changes in both introduced and background eDNA signals across a fixed transect over 96 hours. Foreign eDNA signal was no longer detected only 7.5 hours after introduction, a time substantially shorter than the multi-day persistence times in laboratory studies. Moreover, the foreign eDNA signal spread along the entire 38 m transect within 1.5 hours after introduction, indicating that transport and diffusion play a role in eDNA detectability even in protected low energy marine environments. Similarly, native vertebrate eDNA signals varied greatly over the 96 hours of observation as well as within two additional nearby fixed transects sampled over 120 hours. While community structure did significantly change across time of day and tidal direction, neither accounted for the majority of observed variation. Combined, results show that both foreign and native eDNA signatures can exhibit substantial temporal heterogeneity, even on hourly time scales. Further work exploring eDNA decay from lagrangian perspective and quantifying effects of sample and technical replication are needed to better understand temporal variation of eDNA signatures in nearshore marine environments.
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.