ArticleEcology and evolution2026
A Comparison between Passive airDNA Collection and Extraction Methods on the Recovered Terrestrial Vertebrate Assemblage.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past half-decade, the collection of airborne environmental DNA (airDNA) has emerged as a novel tool for the biomonitoring of terrestrial vertebrates. Similar to other eDNA collection substrates (e.g., soil and water), the filtering of airDNA, while promising, requires rigorous methodological testing before widespread implementation. Two aspects of eDNA filtration that influence the recovered species assemblage are collection and extraction methods. Here, we assess the comparative performance of three collection matrices: cloth filters, paraffin gauze and PCR plate seals, alongside four readily available extraction kits: Qiagen DNeasy Blood & Tissue, Qiagen DNeasy PowerSoil Pro, MagMAX Total Nucleic Isolation and Quick-DNA Miniprep Plus extraction kits. We deployed these passive airDNA filters in a riparian urban parkland within the Tarradarrapin Creek Wetlands in south-east Queensland, Australia. Through the use of both a universal mammalian and universal vertebrate primer, we demonstrate the combination of cloth filters and the Blood & Tissue extraction kit records both the highest number of overall and informative terrestrial operational taxonomic units (OTUs) as well as a diverse and non-variable species assemblage between replicates. Here, we show that optimising airDNA methodologies, and particularly using cloth filters with the Blood and Tissue extraction kit, allowed us to enhance the performance of this novel biomonitoring technique, a crucial step toward supporting its uptake alongside traditional monitoring methods (e.g., camera traps, bioacoustics or aquatic eDNA).
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.