2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113929
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using eDNA to simultaneously detect the distribution of native and invasive crayfish within an entire country

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, amphibians are an excellent taxonomic group for eDNA‐based monitoring, as they abundantly release DNA into the water column via the excretion of mucus containing ample amounts of DNA (Adams et al, 2019). Third, while eDNA concentrations are generally quantified with quantitative PCR (qPCR), there are several indications that it underperforms in terms of resilience to PCR inhibitors (Doi et al, 2015), its accuracy (King et al, 2022), and its sensitivity (Brys, Halfmaerten, et al, 2021) in comparison with a ddPCR approach as was used here. Finally, the applied quantitative eDNA analyses were validated appropriately because bullfrog tadpole abundances were known exactly and eDNA concentrations were standardized among ponds on a total pond volume basis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, amphibians are an excellent taxonomic group for eDNA‐based monitoring, as they abundantly release DNA into the water column via the excretion of mucus containing ample amounts of DNA (Adams et al, 2019). Third, while eDNA concentrations are generally quantified with quantitative PCR (qPCR), there are several indications that it underperforms in terms of resilience to PCR inhibitors (Doi et al, 2015), its accuracy (King et al, 2022), and its sensitivity (Brys, Halfmaerten, et al, 2021) in comparison with a ddPCR approach as was used here. Finally, the applied quantitative eDNA analyses were validated appropriately because bullfrog tadpole abundances were known exactly and eDNA concentrations were standardized among ponds on a total pond volume basis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a final remark, the technique employed in this study is able to detect NIS that are not always found from conventional surveys, as highlighted in other studies that used the same approach (Furlan et al, 2019;King et al, 2022). Despite current gaps in DNA reference databases (Weigand et al, 2019), eDNA metabarcoding could be used as a barometer of disturbance, helping to understand marine environments and complementing the existing survey methods (DiBattista et al, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Although eDNA sampling for species presence is a relatively young field (Ficetola et al ., 2008) which has yet to settle on a standardized approach (Cristescu & Hebert, 2018), its many advantages over conventional methods and a better understanding of its error structure (Burian et al ., 2021) have led to its increasing acceptance for regional or national assessments of species distributions (Kasai et al ., 2021; King et al ., 2022; Matter et al ., 2018). We believe that many elements of this study can serve as a template for using model‐driven eDNA sampling as the basis for the high‐resolution, broad‐scale assessments of species of conservation concern.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%