↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
183 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.
Article details
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
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.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 183 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 19%
Researcher 28 15%
Other 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 38 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 20%
Environmental Science 34 19%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 43 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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
#8,302,300
of 31,718,347 outputs
Outputs from Ecology and Evolution
#3,341
of 10,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,528
of 359,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology and Evolution
#59
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,718,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 359,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.