↓ Skip to main content

An analytical framework for estimating aquatic species density from environmental DNA

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology and Evolution, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An analytical framework for estimating aquatic species density from environmental DNA
Published in
Ecology and Evolution, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/ece3.3764
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thierry Chambert, David S. Pilliod, Caren S. Goldberg, Hideyuki Doi, Teruhiko Takahara

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis of water samples is on the brink of becoming a standard monitoring method for aquatic species. This method has improved detection rates over conventional survey methods and thus has demonstrated effectiveness for estimation of site occupancy and species distribution. The frontier of eDNA applications, however, is to infer species density. Building upon previous studies, we present and assess a modeling approach that aims at inferring animal density from eDNA. The modeling combines eDNA and animal count data from a subset of sites to estimate species density (and associated uncertainties) at other sites where only eDNA data are available. As a proof of concept, we first perform a cross-validation study using experimental data on carp in mesocosms. In these data, fish densities are known without error, which allows us to test the performance of the method with known data. We then evaluate the model using field data from a study on a stream salamander species to assess the potential of this method to work in natural settings, where density can never be known with absolute certainty. Two alternative distributions (Normal and Negative Binomial) to model variability in eDNA concentration data are assessed. Assessment based on the proof of concept data (carp) revealed that the Negative Binomial model provided much more accurate estimates than the model based on a Normal distribution, likely because eDNA data tend to be overdispersed. Greater imprecision was found when we applied the method to the field data, but the Negative Binomial model still provided useful density estimates. We call for further model development in this direction, as well as further research targeted at sampling design optimization. It will be important to assess these approaches on a broad range of study systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 170 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 19%
Researcher 26 15%
Other 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 31 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 22%
Environmental Science 32 19%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 36 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,123,458
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Ecology and Evolution
#2,326
of 8,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,652
of 343,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology and Evolution
#48
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,797 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.