ArticleBMC ecology and evolution2024
Citizen science in eDNA monitoring for mediterranean monk seal conservation.
Article in BMC ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Operationalising Environmental DNA (eDNA) Detection of Major Malaria Vector Species in Ghana.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Willingness to engage in marine conservation through eDNA-informed citizen science on whale-watching platforms.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Role of Community Science in DNA-Based Biodiversity Monitoring.Molecular ecology · 2025Review
- Correction: Citizen science in eDNA monitoring for Mediterranean monk seal conservation.BMC ecology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCitizen Science (CS) offers a promising approach to enhance data collection and engage communities in conservation efforts. This study evaluates the use of CS in environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring for Mediterranean monk seal conservation. We validated CS by assessing the effectiveness of a newly developed CS-friendly filtration system called "WET" (Water eDNA Trap) in eDNA detection, addressing technical challenges, and analysing volunteer faults. The WET is a 4-litre, manual pump-based filtering system using positive pressure to force water through the filter. We also assessed the use of a retrospective questionnaire as a tool to measure CS's social impact on participants' perceived knowledge, attitudes, and conservation behaviours.
resultsResults suggest the WET performs comparably to traditional methods, with minor technical issues. Despite some faults such as not folding or forgetting to change the filter, volunteers were generally reliable in sample processing. Moreover, CS involvement increased participants' perceived knowledge, affective attitudes, and conservation behaviours towards seal conservation. Volunteers reported a greater understanding of eDNA monitoring, increased interest in monk seal conservation, and more frequent conservation behaviours, including spreading awareness within their community. While these findings are exploratory due to the small sample size (19 participants) and potential ceiling effects in attitude assessment, they provide an initial validation of the questionnaire as a tool for measuring CS's social outcomes. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these results and investigate their applicability across broader stakeholder groups. Continuous improvement in volunteer training and equipment design is also recommended.
conclusionsThis study highlights CS's potential to improve public engagement and knowledge in conservation. By involving diverse participants, CS can play a critical role in long-term conservation efforts and promote sustainable coexistence between humans and monk seals. Furthermore, the validation of the questionnaire offers a valuable framework for evaluating the social impact of CS initiatives in conservation contexts.
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.