Extensive evaluation of faecal preservation and DNA extraction methods in Australian native and introduced species

By M. Piggott, A. Taylor. 2003

98 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/92a366bb638a6a5e21565fb2842c002ed777d7ed

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. L. Waits
2. D. Paetkau
3. Andrew Robinson
4. L. Schley
5. A. Frantz
6. M. Manseau
7. M. Murphy
8. K. Kendall

In Genetics

1. D. Paetkau
2. L. Waits
3. Andrew Robinson
4. T. Roper
5. M. Schaul
6. L. Schley
7. A. Frantz
8. L. C. Pope

Citations in the corpus

• The impact of time and field conditions on brown bear (Ursus arctos) faecal DNA amplification (2007, methodology): “Researchers have demonstrated the importance of laboratory factors including faecal preservation method (Wasser et al. 1997; Murphy et al. 2000; Murphy et al. 2002; Piggott and Taylor 2003), faecal DNA extraction method (Flagstad et al.”
• NONINVASIVE GENETIC SAMPLING TOOLS FOR WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS: A REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACCURATE DATA COLLECTION (2005, methodology): “Other authors have provided recent reviews of the use of NGS in con- 1 E-mail: waitsWuidaho.edu servation management of rare or cryptic species (Piggott and Taylor 2003a), detecting and counting rare species (Waits 2004), population estimation (Boulanger et al. 2004, McKelvey and Schwartz 2004),…”
• Comparison of methods to detect rare and cryptic species: A case study using the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) (2009, unknown): “We placed scats in paper bags and stored them at room temperature (Piggott and Taylor 2003b).”
• Estimating population size by genotyping remotely plucked hair: the Eurasian badger (2004, background): “However, it should be emphasized that the reliability of faecal DNA is speciesdependent ( Piggott & Taylor 2003a ) and that it can be more practical and less disruptive to the target species to genotype faeces rather than plucked hair DNA ( Vigilant et al. 2001; Eggert, Eggert & Woodruff 2003).”
• Characterization of target nuclear DNA from faeces reduces technical issues associated with the assumptions of low-quality and quantity template (2007, background): “…2N2, Canada S. Kingston Æ N. Morrill Ontario Parks, 435 James Street South, Suite 221d, Thunder Bay, ON P7E 6S8, Canada disturbance to the animals (Kohn and Wayne 1997; Wasser et al. 1997; Taberlet et al. 1999; Morin et al. 2001; Fernando et al. 2003; Piggott and Taylor 2003; Maudet et al. 2004).”