Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35603473›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2022

Combining surface and soil environmental DNA with artificial cover objects to improve terrestrial reptile survey detection.

Kathleen E Kyle, Michael C Allen, Jeffrey Dragon, John F Bunnell, Howard K Reinert, Robert Zappalorti, Benjamin D Jaffe, Jordan C Angle, Julie L Lockwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Combining surface and soil environmental DNA with artificial cover objects to improve terrestrial reptile survey detection.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    Article
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

9 authors.

Kathleen E KyleDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8830-4460
Michael C AllenDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6632-4337
Jeffrey DragonNew Jersey Pinelands Commission, Pemberton, New Jersey, USA.
John F BunnellNew Jersey Pinelands Commission, Pemberton, New Jersey, USA.
Howard K ReinertDepartment of Biology, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey, USA.
Robert ZappalortiHerpetological Associates Inc., Pemberton, New Jersey, USA.
Benjamin D JaffeExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences Inc, Annandale, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1854-2871
Jordan C AngleExxonMobil Upstream Integrated Solutions, Spring, Texas, USA.
Julie L LockwoodDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reptiles are increasingly of conservation concern due to their susceptibility to habitat loss, emerging disease, and harvest in the wildlife trade. However, reptile populations are often difficult to monitor given the frequency of crypsis in their life history. This difficulty has left uncertain the conservation status of many species and the efficacy of conservation actions unknown. Environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys consistently elevate the detection rate of species they are designed to monitor, and while their use is promising for terrestrial reptile conservation, successes in developing such surveys have been sparse. We tested the degree to which inclusion of surface and soil eDNA sampling into conventional artificial-cover methods elevates the detection probability of a small, cryptic terrestrial lizard, Scincella lateralis. The eDNA sampling of cover object surfaces with paint rollers elevated per sample detection probabilities for this species 4-16 times compared with visual surveys alone. We readily detected S. lateralis eDNA under cover objects up to 2 weeks after the last visual detection, and at some cover objects where no S. lateralis were visually observed in prior months. With sufficient sampling intensity, eDNA testing of soil under cover objects produced comparable per sample detection probabilities as roller surface methods. Our results suggest that combining eDNA and cover object methods can considerably increase the detection power of reptile monitoring programs, allowing more accurate estimates of population size, detection of temporal and spatial changes in habitat use, and tracking success of restoration efforts. Further research into the deposition and decay rates of reptile eDNA under cover objects, as well as tailored protocols for different species and habitats, is needed to bring the technique into widespread use.

Indexed as

DNA, EnvironmentalAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemEnvironmental MonitoringReptilesSoilDNA, EnvironmentalSoildetection probabilityDNAa superficialenvironmental monitoringlittle brown skinkmonitoreo ambientalprobabilidad de detecciónScincella lateralissurface eDNA

Identifiers

PMID35603473
PMCPMC10087970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.