ArticleMolecular ecology resources2025
Spider Webs, Soil or Leaf Swabs to Detect Environmental DNA From Terrestrial Vertebrates: What Is the Best Substrate?
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes Through Drone-Based Environmental DNA Sampling.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Swab vs rollers: a comparison of methods to collect eDNA from vegetative surfaces.BMC research notes · 2026Article
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
Abstract
As human activities drive biodiversity decline, effective biomonitoring is more crucial than ever to track species distribution changes and inform conservation and restoration actions. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has emerged as a promising tool for the simultaneous detection of multiple taxa. However, while substrates play a crucial role in eDNA studies, limited research has compared substrate performance for terrestrial vertebrate detection, leaving a critical gap in empirical knowledge for large-scale application. This study evaluates and compares the effectiveness of three easy-to-collect substrates: soil, leaf swabs, and spider webs, for broad terrestrial vertebrate eDNA monitoring. Specifically, we examined taxonomic richness overlaps among substrates, their effects on wild vertebrate detection probabilities, and within-sample PCR repeatability. We analysed 120 samples from the Landes Forest, an intensively managed temperate forest in Western France, and included additional control samples from the Montpellier zoo to validate our detection capabilities. Using metabarcoding with 12S-V5 and 16S mam primers, we identified 63 taxa at the genus or species level. Our findings highlight the advantages of substrates that passively accumulate airborne DNA (leaf swabs and spider webs) over soil, and position spider webs as a suitable choice for maximising detection probabilities in rapid eDNA surveys, emphasising their potential for efficient, scalable biomonitoring. Further research is needed to identify factors affecting eDNA detectability from these substrates, aiming to standardise procedures and move from proof-of-concept to broad use by researchers and managers.
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.