Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42773627›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2026

Substrate-Dependent Variation in Environmental DNA Persistence and Degradation From a Small Mammal.

Austin M Guthrie, Christine E Cooper, Philip W Bateman, Mieke van der Heyde, Morten E Allentoft, Paul Nevill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Austin M GuthrieTrace and Environmental DNA Laboratory, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5065-4876
Christine E CooperSchool of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Philip W BatemanMine Site Biomonitoring Using eDNA Research Group, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3036-5479
Mieke van der HeydeTrace and Environmental DNA Laboratory, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1658-9927
Morten E AllentoftTrace and Environmental DNA Laboratory, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4424-3568
Paul NevillTrace and Environmental DNA Laboratory, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8238-0534

Funding

South32 Worsley Alumina Pty Ltd
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) analyses have been applied to terrestrial environments for over a decade, yet knowledge of the dynamics of eDNA deposition, movement and degradation remains limited. To address this, we conducted a controlled experiment over 1 year to assess the persistence of eDNA from an arboreal mammal across four substrates (water, sediment, sheltered nest-box surfaces, and exposed nest-box surfaces). Environmental DNA deposited by captive individuals was sampled repeatedly following removal of animals and analysed using both species-specific qPCR and metabarcoding. We modelled degradation using quantitative decay, detection probability, and conditional decay frameworks, and applied a random breakage model to estimate theoretical fragment persistence. Decay followed first-order exponential kinetics in water and on nest box surfaces but not in sediment, which exhibited high stochasticity. We observed a large difference in degradation rates between substrates, with exponential decay models revealing half-lives ranging from 7.3 days in water to 276 days on sheltered internal surfaces. Rapid decay in water restricted detections to approximately 77 days, while persistence models predicted that sheltered surfaces could retain detectable DNA for more than 4 years (> 1700 days), indicating the potential for prolonged accumulation of legacy DNA in protected environments. While species-specific qPCR offered higher sensitivity than metabarcoding, both methods had parallel decay patterns. Our findings indicate that substrate selection is a critical decision when designing an eDNA survey, as there is a trade-off between maximising detection probability and maintaining temporal resolution.

Indexed as

DNA, EnvironmentalAnimalsDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicExtrachromosomal DNADNA, EnvironmentalExtrachromosomal DNADNA degradationenvironmental DNAmetabarcodingqPCRsubstrate comparisonterrestrial eDNA

Identifiers

PMID42773627
PMCPMC13598355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.