Environmental DNA analysis for estimating the abundance and biomass of stream fish

By Hideyuki Doi, Ryutei Inui, Y. Akamatsu, Kazuki Kanno, H. Yamanaka, T. Takahara, Toshifumi Minamoto. 2017

335 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b477884e9611723d046431da4f3fa6deef69dd9

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

Comparing local‐ and regional‐scale estimations of the diversity of stream fish using eDNA metabarcoding and conventional observation methods (2018, background): “…et al., 2013) and rare or threatened 59 species (Wilcox et al., 2013; Sigsgaard, 2015), as well as to determine biomass (Takahara et 60 al., 2012; Doi et al., 2017), the movement and spawning activity of fish (Erickson et al., 61 2016; Yamanaka & Minamoto, 2016), and parameters of population…”
Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities (2017, neutral): “…Hill, & Shea, 2014; Pilliod, Goldberg, Arkle, & Waits, 2013; Thomsen, Kielgast, Iversen, Wiuf et al., 2012), in natural freshwater systems (e.g., Doi et al., 2017; Lacoursi ereRoussel, Côt e, Leclerc, & Bernatchez, 2016) and in marine environments (Jo et al., 2017; Yamamoto et al., 2016)…”
Species-specific detection and quantification of environmental DNA from marine fishes in the Baltic Sea (2019, background): “This includes studies that compare eDNA with seining catch of tidal gobies (Schmelzle and Kinziger, 2016), biomass of a freshwater smelt estimated by snorkelling (Doi et al., 2017), and biomass estimates from echo sounding (Yamamoto et al.”
Environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool for assessing fish biomass: A review of approaches and future considerations for resource surveys (2021, background): “, 2015; Minamoto et al., 2017; Wilcox et al., 2016). For example, Klymus et al. (2015) observed up to a 100fold variation in dayto- day DNA shedding (interpolated from eDNA in the water) from the same fish under controlled conditions— variability that the authors postulated was due to different sour”
Environmental DNA (eDNA) detects the invasive crayfishes Orconectes rusticus and Pacifastacus leniusculus in large lakes of North America (2017, result): “Comparison of eDNA to crayfish distributions or abundance Unlike some previous studies including Dougherty et al. (2016) or Doi et al. (2016), we did not couple our eDNA field sampling with simultaneous conventional surveys for our target taxa.”