ArticlePloS one2025
Navigating uncertainty in environmental DNA detection of a nuisance marine macroalga.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Substrate-Dependent Variation in Environmental DNA Persistence and Degradation From a Small Mammal.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to enhance marine biosecurity.Bioscience · 2026Review
- Integrating active and passive environmental DNA sampling into coral reef monitoring: implications for community-based stewardship in Hawai i.Research square · 2026Article
- A predictive framework for identifying source populations of non-native marine macroalgae:PeerJ · 2025Article
- No pump, no problem: evaluating passive eDNA sampling for marine biomonitoring of a nuisance macroalga.PeerJ · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early detection of nuisance species is crucial for managing threatened ecosystems and preventing widespread establishment. Environmental DNA (eDNA) data can increase the sensitivity of biomonitoring programs, often at minimal cost and effort. However, eDNA analyses are prone to errors that can complicate their use in management frameworks. To address this, eDNA studies must consider imperfect detections and estimate error rates. Detecting nuisance species at low abundances with minimal uncertainty is vital for successful containment and eradication. We developed a novel eDNA assay to detect a nuisance marine macroalga across its colonization front using surface seawater samples from Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (PMNM), one of the world's largest marine reserves. Chondria tumulosa is a cryptogenic red alga with invasive traits, forming dense mats that overgrow coral reefs and smother native flora and fauna in PMNM. We verified the eDNA assay using site-occupancy detection modeling from quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) data, calibrated with visual estimates of benthic cover of C. tumulosa that ranged from < 1% to 95%. Results were subsequently validated with high-throughput sequencing of amplified eDNA and negative control samples. Overall, the probability of detecting C. tumulosa at occupied sites was at least 92% when multiple qPCR replicates were positive. False-positive rates were 3% or less and false-negative errors were 11% or less. The assay proved effective for routine monitoring at shallow sites (less than 10 m), even when C. tumulosa abundance was below 1%. Successful implementation of eDNA tools in conservation decision-making requires balancing uncertainties in both visual and molecular detection methods. Our results and modeling demonstrated the assay's high sensitivity to C. tumulosa, and we outline steps to infer ecological presence-absence from molecular data. This reliable, cost-effective tool enhances the detection of low-abundance species, and supports timely management interventions.
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.