ArticleScientific reports2023
Sampling environmental DNA from trees and soil to detect cryptic arboreal mammals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Substrate-Dependent Variation in Environmental DNA Persistence and Degradation From a Small Mammal.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Methodological Perspectives on Cryptic Species Monitoring: Insights from Strictly Protected Lesser Blind Mole Rat.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessing Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes Through Drone-Based Environmental DNA Sampling.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Swab vs rollers: a comparison of methods to collect eDNA from vegetative surfaces.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Properties and Limitations of eDNA Substrates for Terrestrial Animal Monitoring.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Review
- Unlocking natural history collections to improve eDNA reference databases and biodiversity monitoring.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Article
- Spider Webs, Soil or Leaf Swabs to Detect Environmental DNA From Terrestrial Vertebrates: What Is the Best Substrate?Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Sapsucker Wells as a Keystone Nutritional Resource: Evaluating Methods for Detection of Secondary Sap Consumers.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Artificial Waterbodies: A Valuable Source of eDNA for Detecting Threatened Birds.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Passive Sampling of Urban Runoff Solids to Capture Environmental DNA for the Detection of Rodents in Urban Spaces.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2025Article
- A pilot study using eDNA collected from soil and active air samplers to detect terrestrial vertebrates in an open grassland habitat of central Queensland, Australia.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Validation of eDNA methods for managing the terrestrial invasive snake Lampropeltis californiae on the Canary Islands.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Nested PCR amplification of the mitochondrial hypervariable region for non-invasive eDNA detection of Cryptobranchus alleganiensis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Environmental DNA from peck marks shows potential for non‑invasive monitoring of woodpeckers.PloS one · 2025Article
- Maximizing efficiency in sedimentary ancient DNA analysis: a novel extract pooling approach.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- On a roll: a direct comparison of extraction methods for the recovery of eDNA from roller swabbing of surfaces.BMC research notes · 2023Article
- Using eDNA for mammal inventories still needs naturalist expertise, a meta-analysis.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) approaches to monitoring biodiversity in terrestrial environments have largely focused on sampling water bodies, potentially limiting the geographic and taxonomic scope of eDNA investigations. We assessed the performance of two strictly terrestrial eDNA sampling approaches to detect arboreal mammals, a guild with many threatened and poorly studied taxa worldwide, within two central New Jersey (USA) woodlands. We evaluated species detected with metabarcoding using two eDNA collection methods (tree bark vs. soil sampling), and compared the performance of two detection methods (qPCR vs. metabarcoding) within a single species. Our survey, which included 94 sampling events at 21 trees, detected 16 species of mammals, representing over 60% of the diversity expected in the area. More DNA was found for the 8 arboreal versus 8 non-arboreal species detected (mean: 2466 vs. 289 reads/sample). Soil samples revealed a generally similar composition, but a lower diversity, of mammal species. Detection rates for big brown bat were 3.4 × higher for qPCR over metabarcoding, illustrating the enhanced sensitivity of single-species approaches. Our results suggest that sampling eDNA from on and around trees could serve as a useful new monitoring tool for cryptic arboreal mammal communities globally.
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.