ReviewMolecular ecology resources2026
Properties and Limitations of eDNA Substrates for Terrestrial Animal Monitoring.
Review in Molecular ecology resources, 2026. 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.
- Properties and Limitations of eDNA Substrates for Terrestrial Animal Monitoring.Molecular ecology resources · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) constitutes a valuable tool for monitoring terrestrial animal diversity, but outcomes are affected by multiple factors. Among these factors, the choice of sampling substrate and method is especially important and must be aligned with research objectives. We reviewed 245 published studies that utilise eDNA for terrestrial animal monitoring and compiled an overview of the most frequently used environmental substrates. Based on the reviewed literature, we provide a key description of each substrate, as well as its particular properties and limitations related to the detection of animal species across different spatial and temporal scales. We categorise these substrates into three groups: abiotic substrates (soil, water, air, sediment), biotic substrates (invertebrate samples, plant tissues, spiderwebs) and direct-evidence substrates (scat, footprints, shelters, feeding sites). In addition, we identify several key challenges with the interpretation of eDNA-based biodiversity monitoring, including false negatives and false positives, as well as the dynamics of spatial and temporal deviations. The latter concepts, which we propose and define in this review, describe the temporal and spatial discrepancies between the DNA source and its detection in a given sample. We reflect on how these temporal and spatial deviations are expected to affect eDNA data extracted from the different types of substrates and how knowledge of these dynamics can inform effective and accurate biomonitoring. In summary, this review provides a decision basis for designing terrestrial eDNA monitoring studies by summarising the properties and limitations of different substrates and contextualising the interpretation of results in light of substrate-specific challenges.
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.