Meta‐analysis supports further refinement of eDNA for monitoring aquatic species‐specific abundance in nature

By M. Yates, D. Fraser, A. Derry. Environmental DNA, 2019

261 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The use of eDNA to detect the presence/absence of rare or invasive species is well documented and its use in biodiversity monitoring is expanding. Preliminary labora‐ tory research has also shown a positive correlation between the concentration of species‐specific eDNA particles and the density/biomass of a species in a given envi‐ ronment. However, the extent to which these results can be extended to natural environments has yet to be formally quantified. We collated data from experiments that examined the correlation between eDNA and two metrics of abundance (bio‐ mass and density) and, using mixed‐effects meta‐analysis, quantified the strength of that correlation across laboratory and natural environments. We found that eDNA particle concentration was more strongly correlated with abundance in laboratory environments compared to natural environments, accounting for approximately 82% and 57% of the observed variation in abundance, respectively. We found some evi ‐ dence of potential publication bias that may have impacted the estimation of the correlation in natural environments; after smaller studies were removed from the dataset, eDNA particle concentration accounted for approximately 50% of the ob‐ served variation in abundance in natural environments. No effect of abundance met‐ ric was found on the strength of correlation between eDNA particle concentration and abundance. Despite a weaker general correlation in natural environments, eDNA concentration often still explained substantial variation in abundance. eDNA re‐ search is still an emergent field of study; with only moderate improvements in tech‐ nology or technique, it could represent a powerful new tool for quantifying abundance.

Subfields: Ecology, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/83bf49b8579098bf215be61826c5c74e517fe2d8

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

Metabarcoding From Microbes to Mammals: Comprehensive Bioassessment on a Global Scale (2020, result): “For example, a recent meta-analysis of qPCR and ddPCR results showed that eDNA concentration is much more strongly correlated to abundance in controlled laboratory studies (82% of variation explained) compared to field experiments (57% of variation explained) (Yates et al., 2019).”
Environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool for assessing fish biomass: A review of approaches and future considerations for resource surveys (2021, background): “…fish species, these relationships have been confirmed in controlled environment (aquaria/ mesocosm) studies (Doi et al., 2015; Klymus et al., 2015), but are less clear in natural environments (Spear et al., 2015; Yamamoto et al., 2016; Yates et al., 2019)— reflecting at least two considerations.”