ArticleJournal of phycology2025
Applications of environmental DNA monitoring for seaweed reproductive phenology: A case study with giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera).
Article in Journal of phycology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Applications of environmental DNA monitoring for seaweed reproductive phenology: A case study with giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera).Journal of phycology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Monitoring the seasonal reproductive cycles of seaweeds is crucial for effective population and ecosystem management, as well as mariculture seedstock collection. Traditional methods, such as visual monitoring by SCUBA diving or snorkeling, are costly, labor-intensive, and limited in temporal and spatial coverage. This study explores substituting these methods with environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques for giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera, order Laminariales). This laboratory study aimed to determine the minimum detectable concentration of zoospores and sporophyte tissue needed for detecting the reproductive phenology of M. pyrifera and to assess the ability and sensitivity to discriminate between life stages. The study involved syringe-filtering seawater samples through 0.45-μm pore-size filters before quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis with species-specific primers. There was a strong positive correlation between zoospore concentration and eDNA copies per μL (ρ = 0.982, p < 0.001), and a weak correlation for sporophyte wet weight (ρ = 0.367, p = 0.134). There was a significant difference between zoospore and zoospore + sporophyte treatments (p = 0.010), indicating the substantial influence of sporophyte tissue on detected eDNA quantity. Sporophyte tissue obscures the zoospore signal, especially at lower zoospore concentrations (<37 zoospores · mL
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.