Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA.

By P. F. Thomsen, J. Kielgast, L. Iversen, C. Wiuf, M. Rasmussen, M. Gilbert, Ludovic Antoine Alexandre Orlando, Eske, Willerslev. Molecular Ecology, 2012

1,070 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/68a37e36bfa1696febb7cd460d203cda0f3ebc05

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

Efficacy of Environmental DNA to Detect and Quantify Brook Trout Populations in Headwater Streams of the Adirondack Mountains, New York (2017, background): “Additionally, eDNA from amphibians and fish has reportedly reached undetectable levels within a few hours to a few days or weeks after removal of the target species from natural streams or experimental mesocosms (Dejean et al. 2011; Thomsen et al. 2012; Pilliod et al. 2014).”
Transport Distance of Invertebrate Environmental DNA in a Natural River (2014, background): “[15] found different detection rates of vertebrates and invertebrates in ponds, and Goldberg and colleagues [13]”
Stock assessment in inland fisheries: a foundation for sustainable use and conservation (2016, background): “Presence-absence is particularly relevant in the context of detecting the distribution of endangered species (Jerde et al. 2011), assessing biodiversity (Lodge et al. 2012; Thomsen et al. 2012) or detecting invaders (Jerde et al. 2011).”
Assessing the cost‐efficiency of environmental DNA sampling (2016, methodology): “Secondly, using eDNA sampling in a multispecies framework (e.g. metabarcoding: Thomsen et al. 2012a; Ji et al. 2013) could further increase the cost-efficiency of the eDNA approach, especially when sampling multiple taxonomic groups that require different survey methods.”
The Elephant in the Lab (and Field): Contamination in Aquatic Environmental DNA Studies (2020, background): “, 2008) or can be surveyed for many taxonomic groups with metabarcoding approaches (Thomsen et al., 2012).”
How will the ‘molecular revolution’ contribute to biological recording? (2015, methodology): “This suggests rapid degradation of eDNA in freshwater, even in benign, controlled conditions (Dejean et al., 2011; Thomsen et al., 2012b).”
Monitoring the near-extinct European weather loach in Denmark based on environmental DNA from water samples (2015, methodology): “False negatives can certainly occur when using the eDNA method (Ficetola et al., 2008; Hyman and Collins, 2012; Thomsen et al., 2012a).”
Metagenetic analysis of patterns of distribution and diversity of marine meiobenthic eukaryotes (2014, background): “, 2014) and the expanding field of environmental DNA analysis (Hajibabaei et al., 2011; Taberlet et al., 2012; Thomsen et al., 2012; Ji et al., 2013).”
Experimental observations on the decay of environmental DNA from bighead and silver carps (2017, background): “However, having observed an apparent pattern in our data and in other studies (e.g., Dejean et al. 2011; Pilliod et al. 2014; Sassoubre et al. 2016; Thomsen et al. 2012) showing a very rapid initial degradation followed by a period of slower degradation we decided to also compare the fit of the…”
Fish community assessment with eDNA metabarcoding: effects of sampling design and bioinformatic filtering (2017, background): “Previous research has shown that eDNA can be effective in determining the identity of fish species in freshwater ecosystems (Dejean et al. 2011; Jerde et al. 2011; Thomsen et al. 2012).”