ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2026
Widespread adoption of environmental DNA (eDNA)-based biodiversity monitoring in Canada will depend on trust more than on education: insights from a SWOT analysis.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 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.
- Trends in Aquatic Environmental DNA Research in Alaska.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid decline in biodiversity underscores the urgent need for robust monitoring systems to assess ecological responses to environmental change and to inform effective conservation and sustainable management strategies. Owing to its non-invasive nature, high sensitivity, rapid results, and cost-effectiveness, environmental DNA (eDNA) represents a promising approach to address this challenge. Nevertheless, the limited uptake of eDNA beyond scientific contexts suggests that the characteristics of the innovation alone are insufficient to ensure its adoption. With this study, we aimed to (i) compare the perceptions of eDNA experts and end-users about the capabilities of eDNA-based monitoring methods, (ii) identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) associated with the use of eDNA for biodiversity monitoring in Canada, and (iii) examine whether differences in perceptions stem from socio-demographic factors. We used SWOT analysis to identify key internal and external factors influencing eDNA uptake across stakeholder groups. Our findings reveal broad consensus regarding the strengths and opportunities of eDNA for biodiversity monitoring, alongside more heterogeneous views on its limitations and implementation challenges, while socio-demographic variables showed limited influence on perception patterns. Trust emerged as a pivotal factor influencing the adoption of eDNA-based monitoring, encompassing multiple dimensions: confidence in protocols, skepticism toward laboratories and regulatory bodies, concerns over user capacity, and apprehensions regarding the interpretation and potential misapplication of results. To broaden eDNA uptake in Canada, we recommend emphasizing not only education, but also alignment with end-user expectations to increase confidence in the methods, and trust among organizations.
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.