Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)

By J. Biggs, N. Ewald, A. Valentini, Coline Gaboriaud, Tony Dejean, R. Griffiths, J. Foster, J. Wilkinson, Andy Arnell, P. Brotherton and 2 more. 2015

500 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/60e29f5f17ecb7bdd15f12fa65265341e911bcba

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

Environmental DNA - An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity (2015, methodology): “Nevertheless, several studies report shorter handling time and lower cost using eDNA compared to traditional monitoring techniques (Jerde et al., 2011; Biggs et al., 2015; Sigsgaard et al., 2015).”
Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities (2017, background): “The simplicity of the protocol used to collect environmental samples has created an avenue for citizen scientist programmes to be built around surveying for biodiversity using eDNA (Biggs et al., 2015).”
Taxonomic and geographical representation of freshwater environmental DNA research in aquatic conservation (2019, methodology): “Given the sensitivity of species detection using eDNA, this technique can be an important supplementary tool for endangered species monitoring (Biggs et al., 2015; Itakura et al., 2019; Stoeckle et al., 2016; Thomsen et al., 2012), especially in deep and turbid aquatic habitats (Bellemain et al.,…”
Read counts from environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding reflect fish abundance and biomass in drained ponds (2020, background): “The use of Sterivex filters, or enclosed filters in general, is however more amenable to large-scale monitoring programmes for environmental managers or citizen science projects (Biggs et al. 2015; Buxton et al. 2018; Larson et al. 2020).”
Environmental DNA particle size distribution from Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (2015, background): “…conservation biology. eDNA has recently been applied to detect rare invasive species (e.g., Jerde et al. 2011) and endangered native species (e.g., Biggs et al. 2015) including fishes (Takahara et al. 2013) amphibians (Pilliod et al. 2013), reptiles (Piaggio et al. 2013), mollusks (Goldberg et…”
Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species (2016, background): “…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) and can be influenced by outliers (Biggs et al. 2015).”
How will the ‘molecular revolution’ contribute to biological recording? (2015, background): “A recent eDNA study on great crested newts (GCN), Triturus cristatus, led by the Freshwater Habitats Trust (FHT) and carried out in the U.K., emphatically demonstrated that the answer to this question is “no” (Biggs et al., 2014; 2015).”
Next‐generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding (2016, methodology): “For small still-water ecosystems (ponds, ditches and mountain lakes), sampling was performed following the protocol described in Biggs et al. (2015).”
The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics (2016, background): “These same features may also open the door to conservation and research efforts at unprecedented geographic scales by engaging citizen scientists to aid with environmental sample collection (Biggs et al. 2014).”
Environmental DNA (eDNA) detects the invasive crayfishes Orconectes rusticus and Pacifastacus leniusculus in large lakes of North America (2017, background): “In addition, our study involved successful collaboration with citizen scientists to collect some of our eDNA water samples, making it among the first efforts to combine citizen science with eDNA sampling for monitoring of biodiversity (Biggs et al., 2015; Miralles et al., 2016).”
Comparing environmental DNA metabarcoding and underwater visual census to monitor tropical reef fishes (2020, methodology): “After the DNA extraction, the samples were tested for inhibition following the protocol described in Biggs et al. (2015).”
Methods for the extraction, storage, amplification and sequencing of DNA from environmental samples (2018, background): “2013), and slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi; Janosik & Johnston 2015), as well as amphibians such as the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus; Rees et al. 2014; Biggs et al. 2015), Idaho salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus), Rocky Mountain tailed frog (Ascaphus montanus; Goldberg et al.”
The ecologist's field guide to sequence‐based identification of biodiversity (2016, unknown): “One of the most powerful aspects of eDNA analysis is the ability to sample biodiversity that is not easily sampled by other means or requires an unmanageable amount of time (Biggs et al. 2015).”