Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples

By Gentile Francesco Ficetola, C. Miaud, F. Pompanon, P. Taberlet. Biology Letters, 2008

1,618 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Conservation, Economics and Econometrics, Visual Arts and Performing Arts

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0de5da14ae6ffead9c571994801d4ea4a60e32e6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Conservation

In Economics and Econometrics

In Visual Arts and Performing Arts

Citations in the corpus

Moving environmental DNA methods from concept to practice for monitoring aquatic macroorganisms (2015, methodology): “There are a number of methods for collecting and analyzing eDNA samples, including precipitation of small volumes (Ficetola et al., 2008; Thomsen et al., 2012b) and filtration of larger volumes (Goldberg et al., 2011; Jerde et al., 2011).”
Utility of Environmental DNA for Monitoring Rare and Indicator Macroinvertebrate Species (2014, methodology): “eDNA as a novel, present-day species detection method has been applied in aquatic systems mostly to amphibians or fish species (e.g., Ficetola et al. 2008, Dejean et al. 2011).”
Invasive Species and Amphibian Conservation (2020, methodology): “Developing prevention protocols for intracontinental trade is more challenging because regulations at this level often allow free trade, making the control and tracking of living organisms transported for food or pets extremely difﬁcult (Ficetola et al. 2008a; Kikillus et al. 2012).”
Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. (2012, background): “Although of great potential for contemporary biodiversity monitoring, environmental DNA detection in wild populations has so far only been applied to a few common or invasive species of amphibians and fish (Ficetola et al. 2008; Goldberg et al. 2011; Jerde et al. 2011).”
Environmental DNA surveillance for invertebrate species: advantages and technical limitations to detect invasive crayfish Procambarus clarkii in freshwater ponds. (2014, methodology): “Successful detection is reported in more than 80% of cases when collecting only three samples of water (45 mL in total) per pond (Ficetola et al. 2008; Dejean et al. 2012; Thomsen et al. 2012a).”
Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) (2015, methodology): “…that eDNA can be used to detect the presence of amphibians, fish, invertebrates (including dragonflies and crustaceans), mammals and water birds (Ficetola et al., 2008; Goldberg et al., 2011; Olson et al., 2012; Thomsen et al., 2012), and to assess fish and amphibian abundance (Takahara et al.,…”
GAPeDNA: Assessing and mapping global species gaps in genetic databases for eDNA metabarcoding (2021, methodology): “Exogenous DNA released by animals in the environment, through shed skin, mucus or faeces, can be retrieved by filtering water and amplified via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using universal primers (Ficetola, Miaud, Pompanon, & Taberlet, 2008).”
Next‐generation sequencing technologies for environmental DNA research (2012, methodology): “Ficetola et al. (2008) combined an NGS approach with conventional Sanger sequencing of cytochrome b amplicons to detect the presence of bullfrogs in freshwater samples.”
Replication levels, false presences and the estimation of the presence/absence from eDNA metabarcoding data (2015, background): “The number of replicates per environmental sample can be highly variable among studies, ranging from two to >10 (e.g. Ficetola et al. 2008; Jerde et al. 2011, 2013; Parducci et al. 2013; Giguet-Covex et al. 2014; Willerslev et al. 2014).”
How will the ‘molecular revolution’ contribute to biological recording? (2015, methodology): “They are recognised as one of the world’s 100 worst invasive species (DAISIE, http://www.europe-aliens.org; Dejean et al., 2012) and have been linked to the decline of native amphibians via competition, predation and spread of disease (Ficetola et al., 2008 and references therein).”