Special Issue Article: Environmental DNA Quantifying effects of UV-B, temperature, and pH on eDNA degradation in aquatic microcosms

By Katherine M. Strickler, A. Fremier, Caren S. Goldberg. 2014

456 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d0bef3ae4fb5f0761e7e4657f6535d0870215e1a

How researchers see this paper

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

1. M. Rourke
2. Eske Willerslev
3. A. Valentini
4. Tony Dejean
5. J. Biggs
6. Ashley M. Fowler
7. Elise Furlan
8. J. Hughes

Citations in the corpus

• Environmental DNA - An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity (2015, background): “River Crustacean, mussel Switzerland Present Pilliod et al. (2014) Factors influencing detection of eDNA from a streamdwelling amphibian Streams Amphibian (idaho giant salamander) Idaho, USA Present Tréguier et al. (2014) Environmental DNA surveillance for invertebrate species: advantages and techni”
• Efficacy of Environmental DNA to Detect and Quantify Brook Trout Populations in Headwater Streams of the Adirondack Mountains, New York (2017, background): “2012), crowding (related to low summer flows), fish activity (related to high stormflows), and chemically stressful conditions (Maruyama et al. 2014; Pilliod et al. 2014; Klymus et al. 2015; Strickler et al. 2015; Wilcox et al. 2016).”
• Moving environmental DNA methods from concept to practice for monitoring aquatic macroorganisms (2015, background): “Strickler et al. (2015) found a 13-fold difference in the amount of eDNA shed by American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) tadpoles held under the same static conditions, and Pilliod et al. (2014) found a similar pattern, with shed rates varying 6-fold among Idaho giant salamanders (Dicamptodon…”
• Meta‐analysis supports further refinement of eDNA for monitoring aquatic species‐specific abundance in nature (2019, background): “…variables (diffusion rate, temperature, pH, etc.) and life history characteristics (e.g., size/biomass) can affect the amount of eDNA particles available for detection (Barnes et al., 2014; Jane et al., 2015; Klymus et al., 2015; Lacoursière‐Roussel, Rosabal, et al., 2016; Strickler et al., 2015).”
• Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) (2015, background): “Elsewhere in this special issue, Strickler et al. (2014) report on the effects of temperature, UV-B radiation and pH on the degradation of American bullfrog tadpole eDNA in the laboratory.”
• Environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool for assessing fish biomass: A review of approaches and future considerations for resource surveys (2021, background): “All organisms release mucus, feces, urine, gametes, and skin cells which, for aquatic species, result in intra- and extracellular DNA being suspended in the water column and detectable for up to ~60 days (Dejean et al., 2012; Strickler et al., 2015; Thomsen et al., 2012).”
• Downstream transport and seasonal variation in freshwater pearl mussel ( Margaritifera margaritifera ) eDNA concentration (2019, background): “Stream characteristics that may affect downstream transport of eDNA include discharge, gradient and stream bottom sediment (Jerde et al., 2016; Strickler et al., 2015).”
• Sedimentary eDNA provides different information on timescale and fish species composition compared with aqueous eDNA (2020, unknown): “S1) (Eichmiller et al., 2016; Strickler et al., 2015).”