Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38784600›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental DNA (Hoboken, N.J.)2024

Critical considerations for communicating environmental DNA science.

Eric D Stein, Christopher L Jerde, Elizabeth Andruszkiewicz Allan, Adam J Sepulveda, Cathryn L Abbott, Melinda R Baerwald, John Darling, Kelly D Goodwin, Rachel S Meyer, Molly A Timmers and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental DNA (Hoboken, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Field Trials of an Autonomous eDNA Sampler in Lotic Waters.Environmental science & technology · 2024
    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

11 authors.

Eric D SteinSouthern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4729-809X
Christopher L JerdeMarine Science Institute, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8074-3466
Elizabeth Andruszkiewicz AllanSchool of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9675-0003
Adam J SepulvedaU.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Bozeman, Montana, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7621-7028
Cathryn L AbbottFisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada.
Melinda R BaerwaldDivision of Integrated Science and Engineering, California Department of Water Resources, West Sacramento, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7462-5212
John DarlingU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Genomics Branch, Watershed and Ecosystem Characterization Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4776-9533
Kelly D GoodwinNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Ocean Exploration, Stationed at SWFSC/NMFS, La Jolla, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9583-8073
Rachel S MeyerDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4907-5797
Molly A TimmersPristine Seas, National Geographic Society, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0545-8443
Peter M ThielenResearch and Exploratory Development Department, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1807-2785

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The economic and methodological efficiencies of environmental DNA (eDNA) based survey approaches provide an unprecedented opportunity to assess and monitor aquatic environments. However, instances of inadequate communication from the scientific community about confidence levels, knowledge gaps, reliability, and appropriate parameters of eDNA-based methods have hindered their uptake in environmental monitoring programs and, in some cases, has created misperceptions or doubts in the management community. To help remedy this situation, scientists convened a session at the Second National Marine eDNA Workshop to discuss strategies for improving communications with managers. These include articulating the readiness of different eDNA applications, highlighting the strengths and limitations of eDNA tools for various applications or use cases, communicating uncertainties associated with specified uses transparently, and avoiding the exaggeration of exploratory and preliminary findings. Several key messages regarding implementation, limitations, and relationship to existing methods were prioritized. To be inclusive of the diverse managers, practitioners, and researchers, we and the other workshop participants propose the development of communication workflow plans, using RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) charts to clarify the roles of all pertinent individuals and parties and to minimize the chance for miscommunications. We also propose developing decision support tools such as Structured Decision-Making (SDM) to help balance the benefits of eDNA sampling with the inherent uncertainty, and developing an eDNA readiness scale to articulate the technological readiness of eDNA approaches for specific applications. These strategies will increase clarity and consistency regarding our understanding of the utility of eDNA-based methods, improve transparency, foster a common vision for confidently applying eDNA approaches, and enhance their benefit to the monitoring and assessment community.

Indexed as

communication workflowdecision support toolseDNAimplementation readinessRACI chartstransition to managementtransparency

Identifiers

PMID38784600
PMCPMC11110536

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.