ArticlePeerJ2023
Environmental DNA and visual encounter surveys for amphibian biomonitoring in aquatic environments of the Ecuadorian Amazon.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of conventional methods and mosquito blood meal analysis to assess vertebrate diversity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Role of Community Science in DNA-Based Biodiversity Monitoring.Molecular ecology · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The development of anthropogenic activities has generated a decline in aquatic fauna populations, and amphibians have been the most affected. The decline of batrachofauna is concerning, as 41% of all species worldwide are endangered. For this reason, rapid, efficient, and non-invasive biodiversity monitoring techniques are needed, and environmental DNA (eDNA) is one such tool that has been sparsely applied in Ecuador. This technique has allowed scientists generates information on species diversity and amphibian community composition from a water sample. This study applied eDNA-based biomonitoring analyses and visual encounter surveys (VES) as inventory techniques to identify the diversity of aquatic amphibians in the Tena River micro-basin (TRMB). Methods: The experimental design was divided into three components: (1) fieldwork: all amphibians were recorded by the VES technique and water samples were collected; (2) laboratory work: DNA isolation from amphibian tissue samples and eDNA-containing filters, amplification, electrophoresis, and sequencing were performed; (3) Data analysis: a local DNA reference database was constructed, and eDNA sequence data were processed for classification, taxonomic assignment, and ecological interpretation. Results: Using both eDNA and VES, we detected 33 amphibian species (13 with eDNA only, five with VES only, and 15 with both methods). These species belonged to six amphibian families: Hylidae being the richest with 14 species (three eDNA, one VES, and 10 with both methods), followed by Strabomantidae with nine species (six eDNA, one VES, and two with both methods). All families were detected with both methods, except for the Aromobatidae, having one single record ( Conclusions: Results obtained in this study showed that eDNA-based detection had a greater capacity to detect amphibians in aquatic environments compared to VES. The combination of VES and eDNA improves the sensitivity of species detection and provides more reliable, robust, and detailed information. The latter is essential for developing conservation strategies in the Ecuadorian Amazon.
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.