Quantification of eDNA shedding rates from invasive bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis and silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix.

By Katy E. Klymus, C. Richter, D. Chapman, C. Paukert. 2015

443 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1131fdf50a1d514ade4ee9b2ef7546c0f5520bf9

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

Meta‐analysis supports further refinement of eDNA for monitoring aquatic species‐specific abundance in nature (2019, background): “Two fixed categorical effects were tested: (i) environ‐ ment (“Laboratory” vs. “Nature”) and (ii) metric of correlation (“Biomass” vs. “Density”).”
Evaluation of Filtration and DNA Extraction Methods for Environmental DNA Biodiversity Assessments across Multiple Trophic Levels (2017, methodology): “Recently, methods for eDNA metabarcoding to assess taxon-specific biodiversity of higher organisms such as invertebrates (Machida et al., 2009; Yu et al., 2012; Klymus et al., 2015; Aylagas et al., 2016) and vertebrates (Kelly et al.”
A simple method for preserving environmental DNA in water samples at ambient temperature by addition of cationic surfactant (2017, background): “…a target species into surrounding water is commonly applied to reveal the macroorganism distribution (Goldberg et al. 2011; Keskin 2014; Yamanaka and Minamoto 2016) and in some cases to estimate the biomass or abundance (Takahara et al. 2012; Klymus et al. 2015; Lacoursière-Roussel et al. 2016).”
Efficacy of Environmental DNA to Detect and Quantify Brook Trout Populations in Headwater Streams of the Adirondack Mountains, New York (2017, background): “Production of eDNA from aquatic species is associated with normal sloughing of external (skin and gill) and internal (intestinal) tissues into surrounding waters (Thomsen and Willerslev 2015) and can vary with diet (Klymus et al. 2015) and reproductive stage (Maruyama et al. 2014).”
Experimental observations on the decay of environmental DNA from bighead and silver carps (2017, background): “Biological waste (e.g., feces, urine, sloughed epidermis; termed here “biowaste”) and gametes (especially from broadcast spawners like H. molitrix) are two significant sources of eDNA in aquatic systems (Ficetola et al. 2008; Klymus et al. 2015).”
Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species (2016, background): “…quantities and organismal abundances in experimental settings (Takahara et al. 2012; Thomsen et al. 2012a; Goldberg et al. 2013; Doi et al. 2015; Klymus et al. 2015) and some field sites (e.g. Pilliod et al. 2013), but this relationship is not always found in field settings (Spear et al. 2015)…”
Environmental DNA - An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity (2015, background): “River Crustacean, mussel Switzerland Present Pilliod et al. (2014) Factors influencing detection of eDNA from a streamdwelling amphibian Streams Amphibian (idaho giant salamander) Idaho, USA Present Tréguier et al. (2014) Environmental DNA surveillance for invertebrate species: advantages and techni”
The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics (2016, background): “Indeed, Klymus et al. (2014) found that increased feeding behavior of bigheaded carps increased eDNA shedding rates.”