Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35356708›Full record

ArticleBiological invasions2021

Early detection monitoring for non-indigenous fishes; comparison of survey approaches during two species introductions in a Great Lakes port.

Greg S Peterson, Joel C Hoffman, Anett S Trebitz, Chelsea I Hatzenbuhler, Jared T Myers, Jason E Ross, Sara L Okum, Erik M Pilgrim

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biological invasions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Greg S PetersonCenter for Computational Toxicology and Ecology, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, 6201 Congdon Blvd, Duluth, MN 55804, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5344-4551
Joel C HoffmanCenter for Computational Toxicology and Ecology, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, 6201 Congdon Blvd, Duluth, MN 55804, USA.
Anett S TrebitzCenter for Computational Toxicology and Ecology, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, 6201 Congdon Blvd, Duluth, MN 55804, USA.
Chelsea I HatzenbuhlerSpecPro Professional Services, Contractor To US Environmental Protection Agency, 6201 Congdon Blvd, Duluth, MN 55804, USA.
Jared T MyersUS Fish and Wildlife Service, Ashland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 2800 Lakeshore Drive E, Ashland, WI 54806, USA.
Jason E RossUS Fish and Wildlife Service, Ashland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 2800 Lakeshore Drive E, Ashland, WI 54806, USA.
Sara L OkumPegasus Professional Services, Contractor To US Environmental Protection Agency, 26 Martin Luther King Dr, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
Erik M PilgrimCenter for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Watershed and Ecosystem Characterization Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, 26 Martin Luther King Dr, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
Environmental Protection Agency · USUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing relative performance of different sampling methods used for early detection monitoring (EDM) is a critical step in understanding the likelihood of detecting new non-indigenous species (NIS) in an environment of interest. EDM performance metrics are typically based on the probability of detecting established NIS or rare indigenous species; however, detection probability estimates for these proxies may not accurately reflect survey effectiveness for newly introduced NIS. We used data from three different EDM survey approaches that varied by targeted life-stage (adult-juvenile versus ichthyoplankton), media (physical fish versus environmental DNA), and taxonomic method (morphology-based versus DNA-based taxonomy) to explore relative detection sensitivity for recently introduced white bass (

Indexed as

DNA metabarcodingEarly detectioneDNAIchthyoplanktonMonitoringNon-indigenous fishes

Identifiers

PMID35356708
PMCPMC8958937
OpenAlexW3210477464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.