ArticleScientific reports2024
Detection, movement and persistence of invertebrate eDNA in groundwater.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Validating COI eDNA Metabarcoding Primers for Detection of Subterranean Fauna.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Environmental DNA Metabarcoding Effectively Detects Invasive Species, Pests, and Community Changes in Taiwan's Rice Fields.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Research on Quantitative Analysis Technology for Pacific White Shrimp Density Based on Environmental DNA.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- A DNA Barcode Inventory of Austrian Dragonfly and Damselfly (Insecta: Odonata) Species.Insects · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sampling groundwater biodiversity is difficult because of limited access and issues with species identification. Environmental DNA (eDNA) provides a viable alternative to traditional sampling approaches, however limited knowledge of the abundance and fate of DNA in groundwater hinders the interpretation of data from these environments. Groundwater environments are dark and have lower oxygen concentrations and microbial activity than surface waters. Consequently, assumptions about DNA fate in surface ecosystems may not apply to groundwaters. Here, we test the longevity and transport of eDNA in groundwater within a static microcosm and a flow-through mesocosm. A variety of invertebrates were placed within a mesocosm and microcosm to enable DNA shedding, and then removed. DNA persisted for up to 5 weeks after their removal in the static experiment and was detected between 9 and 33 days in the flow-through experiment. Sediments and water both proved important for eDNA detection. Crustacean DNA was detected sporadically and unpredictably, whereas non-crustacean DNA was detected more frequently despite their lower densities. We suggest that detecting crustaceans poses a challenge to utilising eDNA approaches for stygofauna monitoring. This is confounded by the scarcity of sequences for stygofauna in reference databases. Further research is needed before eDNA alone can be routinely employed for stygofauna detection.
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.