ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2024
Field Trials of an Autonomous eDNA Sampler in Lotic Waters.
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomonitoring 3.0: Beyond Taxa Lists to Evidence-Tiered Monitoring of Ecosystem Dynamics and Interactions.Ecology and evolution · 2026Review
- Accounting for temporal variation and correlation in environmental DNA sampling can improve ecological inferences.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026Article
- Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Micropropagules in Seawater During the 2020 Green Tide Outbreak in the Southern Yellow Sea.Biology · 2026Article
- Rainfall has contrasting effects on aquatic and terrestrial environmental DNA recovered from streams.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026Article
- Article
- Environmental DNA as a tool for hydropower impact assessments: current status, special considerations, and future integration.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis has become a transformative technology, but sample collection methods lack standardization and sampling at effective frequencies requires considerable field effort. Autonomous eDNA samplers that can sample water at high frequencies offer potential solutions to these problems. We present results from four case studies using a prototype autonomous eDNA sampler as part of the U.S. Geological Survey's Rapid Environmental eDNA Assessment and Deployment Initiative & Network (READI-Net) project. These case studies involved short-term deployments of an eDNA autosampler (Smith-Root) across a range of riverine habitats with the objectives of (a) identifying what insights could be gained from high-frequency autosampling and (b) benchmarking these autosamples against manually collected samples. The high frequency autosampling revealed high temporal variability of eDNA concentrations and provided valuable insights about eDNA associations with environmental covariates, such as discharge and turbidity. Benchmarking assessments indicated autosamples had similar detection rates to manual samples and obtained similar or greater eDNA quantities. We did find minimal carryover contamination in autosampler field controls. We conclude that eDNA autosamplers have potential to improve freshwater biosurveillance by reducing logistical sampling barriers, standardizing collection methods, and clarifying the influence of environmental covariates on eDNA results.
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.