ArticleScientific reports2021
Environmental DNA preserved in marine sediment for detecting jellyfish blooms after a tsunami.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental DNA as a tool for hydropower impact assessments: current status, special considerations, and future integration.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- Comparison of Environmental DNA Metabarcoding and Underwater Visual Census for Assessing Macrobenthic Diversity.Biology · 2025Article
- Biodiversity and distribution patterns of blooming jellyfish in the Bohai Sea revealed by eDNA metabarcoding.BMC ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Application of environmental DNA metabarcoding and quantitative PCR to detect blooming jellyfish in a temperate bay of northern China.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) can be a powerful tool for detecting the distribution and abundance of target species. This study aimed to test the longevity of eDNA in marine sediment through a tank experiment and to use this information to reconstruct past faunal occurrence. In the tank experiment, juvenile jack mackerel (Trachurus japonicus) were kept in flow-through tanks with marine sediment for two weeks. Water and sediment samples from the tanks were collected after the removal of fish. In the field trial, sediment cores were collected in Moune Bay, northeast Japan, where unusual blooms of jellyfish (Aurelia sp.) occurred after a tsunami. The samples were analyzed by layers to detect the eDNA of jellyfish. The tank experiment revealed that after fish were removed, eDNA was not present in the water the next day, or subsequently, whereas eDNA was detectable in the sediment for 12 months. In the sediment core samples, jellyfish eDNA was detected at high concentrations above the layer with the highest content of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, reflecting tsunami-induced oil spills. Thus, marine sediment eDNA preserves a record of target species for at least one year and can be used to reconstruct past faunal occurrence.
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.