Environmental conditions influence eDNA persistence in aquatic systems.

By Matthew A. Barnes, C. Turner, C. Jerde, M. Renshaw, W. L. Chadderton, David M. Lodge. Environmental Science and Technology, 2014

867 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/41dc1b7154c1d9188c9219c5d2a31b3874c7698b

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

Effective monitoring of freshwater fish (2019, background): “, 2016), but some questions remain on, for example, factors affecting the rate of DNA breakdown in the environment (Barnes et al., 2014).”
Downstream transport and seasonal variation in freshwater pearl mussel ( Margaritifera margaritifera ) eDNA concentration (2019, background): “Abundance estimates are challenging due to high variability in both the rates at which DNA is shed into the environment (Sansom & Sassoubre, 2017) and how quickly eDNA degrades (Barnes et al., 2014) and is deposited (Jerde et al., 2016).”
Quantifying effects of UV-B, temperature, and pH on eDNA degradation in aquatic microcosms (2015, background): “Common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ) eDNA in laboratory mesocosms was estimated to be undetectable at 95% probability after approximately 4 days (Barnes et al., 2014), but was detected in extreme cases as long as 14 days.”
Particle size distribution and optimal capture of aqueous macrobial eDNA (2014, background): “Particle size analysis, such as that presented here, is one of the many important research avenues needed to better understand the origin, state and fate of aqueous macrobial eDNA (Barnes et al. 2014).”
Environmental DNA - An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity (2015, background): “Barnes et al. (2014) showed that a high degree of biological activity, measured as chlorophyll concentration, biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total eDNA, decreased the degradation rate of eDNA, perhaps due to shielding of eDNA from UV radiation by algae.”
How will the ‘molecular revolution’ contribute to biological recording? (2015, background): “The consensus from several studies is that rate of DNA degradation in water varies widely between different environments, but DNA rarely persists for more than two weeks (Rees et al., 2014; Barnes et al., 2014).”
Utility of Environmental DNA for Monitoring Rare and Indicator Macroinvertebrate Species (2014, background): “Furthermore, lotic systems are shallow and well mixed, and these factors probably increase the rate of degradation of eDNA by ultraviolet light and mechanical breakdown relative to in lentic waters (Wilcox et al. 2013, Barnes et al. 2014).”
Quantifying relative fish abundance with eDNA: a promising tool for fisheries management (2016, background): “More specifically, eDNA released by fish in natural ecosystems is likely to originate predominantly from either mitochondria or cells and rapidly degrades/settles (Barnes et al. 2014) or settle (Turner et al. 2014; Turner, Uy & Everhart 2015) following release.”
Moving environmental DNA methods from concept to practice for monitoring aquatic macroorganisms (2015, methodology): “, Barnes et al., 2014; Mahon et al., 2013; Wilcox et al., 2013). This special issue presents a body of research from scientists working to further advance the application of eDNA methods for conservation and management of aquatic macroorganisms. The 11 papers included in this issue focus on the tech”
Monitoring the near-extinct European weather loach in Denmark based on environmental DNA from water samples (2015, methodology): “While much remains unknown about the importance of environmental variables for the longevity of eDNA molecules, a number of biotic and abiotic factors have been found to have an effect on degradation rates (Barnes et al., 2014).”