ArticleBMC research notes2026
Swab vs rollers: a comparison of methods to collect eDNA from vegetative surfaces.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEnvironmental DNA can be collected from vegetative surfaces circumventing the need for extensive equipment and multiple visits as often required by other sampling methods. This approach potentially offers a cost-effective and time-efficient means of capturing genetic material that can be used to provide valuable insights into terrestrial biodiversity. However, the effect of the material used to collect the sample is unknown. Here we compare the suitability of both clinical swabs and mini paint rollers to collect eDNA from vegetative surfaces in a bushland reserve in Western Australia.
resultsBoth methods detected diverse eukaryote communities. There were no significant differences in ZOTU richness or community composition between the approaches, although the paint rollers had slightly higher cumulative richness. The choice between the two methods will likely be determined by logistical constraints: paint rollers are more expensive, bigger, and may be more susceptible to contamination but sample a greater surface area and can be readily attached to poles to access difficult to reach areas. Clinical swabs come sterile, are relatively small, and cheaper, but have limited reach and would require modification of poles. Although the sample size was small, results presented here can help guide future surface-based eDNA studies.
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.