ArticleScientific reports2025
Validation of eDNA methods for managing the terrestrial invasive snake Lampropeltis californiae on the Canary Islands.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Environmental DNA (eDNA) Technology in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Research: Advances and Prospects.Ecology and evolution · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive snakes are among the most challenging invaders worldwide due to their exceptionally low detection rate and grave ecological impacts. Environmental DNA (eDNA) has emerged as a promising tool to improve invasive snake detection and enhancing management programs, yet its application to terrestrial snakes remains underexplored. This study provides the first advances in the use of eDNA techniques to detect the terrestrial invasive California kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae). We designed L. californiae-specific primers and tested their effectiveness in detecting the species in different environmental samples, including swab samples from underneath artificial cover objects (ACOs) made of different materials, soil beneath ACOs, randomly collected soil, and researchers' boots. Additionally, we conducted a controlled experiment to assess the accumulation and degradation rate of L. californiae eDNA over a 14-day period (7 with snakes in the terraria and 7 after having removed them). We detected L. californiae eDNA in 9.31% of swab samples, in 2.22% of soil samples under ACOs, and in 2.56% of boot samples, while no detections appeared in randomly collected soil or controls. In the controlled experiment, eDNA was undetectable in terraria prior snake introductions, but remained detectable throughout the study, with no evidence of snake eDNA degradation after snake removal. These findings provide key insights for the implementation of an eDNA-based protocol for the detection of L. californiae in Gran Canaria, offering a valuable tool for monitoring this invasive species. Furthermore, this study could be used for refining eDNA methodologies to detect other elusive terrestrial snake species elsewhere.
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.