Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39540890›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2024

Field Trials of an Autonomous eDNA Sampler in Lotic Waters.

Scott D George, Adam J Sepulveda, Patrick R Hutchins, David S Pilliod, Katy E Klymus, Austen C Thomas, Ben C Augustine, Chany C Huddleston Adrianza, Devin N Jones, Jacob R Williams and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Accounting for temporal variation and correlation in environmental DNA sampling can improve ecological inferences.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Rainfall has contrasting effects on aquatic and terrestrial environmental DNA recovered from streams.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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.

Scott D GeorgeU.S. Geological Survey, New York Water Science Center, Troy, New York 12180, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8197-1866
Adam J SepulvedaU.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Bozeman, Montana 59715, United States.
Patrick R HutchinsU.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Bozeman, Montana 59715, United States.
David S PilliodU.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Boise, Idaho 83702, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4207-3518
Katy E KlymusU.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Missouri 65201, United States.
Austen C ThomasSmith-Root, Vancouver, Washington 98686, United States.
Ben C AugustineU.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Ecological Science Center, Laurel, Maryland 20708, United States.
Chany C Huddleston AdrianzaU.S. Geological Survey, New York Water Science Center, Troy, New York 12180, United States.
Devin N JonesU.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Bozeman, Montana 59715, United States.
Jacob R WilliamsTurner Institute of Ecoagriculture, Natural Resources Program, Bozeman, Montana 59718, United States.
Eric G LeinonenTurner Institute of Ecoagriculture, Natural Resources Program, Bozeman, Montana 59718, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Automation, LaboratoryDNA, EnvironmentalEnvironmental MonitoringRiversAnimalsRoboticsTimeDNA, EnvironmentalinvasiveRainbow Troutrobotic samplerRound GobySpectaclecasetemporalWestern PearlshellWestslope Cutthroat Trout

Identifiers

PMID39540890
PMCPMC11603765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.