↓ Skip to main content

Persistence of DNA in Carcasses, Slime and Avian Feces May Affect Interpretation of Environmental DNA Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
Persistence of DNA in Carcasses, Slime and Avian Feces May Affect Interpretation of Environmental DNA Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0113346
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher M. Merkes, S. Grace McCalla, Nathan R. Jensen, Mark P. Gaikowski, Jon J. Amberg

Abstract

The prevention of non-indigenous aquatic invasive species spreading into new areas is a goal of many resource managers. New techniques have been developed to survey for species that are difficult to capture with conventional gears that involve the detection of their DNA in water samples (eDNA). This technique is currently used to track the invasion of bigheaded carps (silver carp and bighead carp; Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and H. nobilis) in the Chicago Area Waterway System and Upper Mississippi River. In both systems DNA has been detected from silver carp without the capture of a live fish, which has led to some uncertainty about the source of the DNA. The potential contribution to eDNA by vectors and fomites has not been explored. Because barges move from areas with a high abundance of bigheaded carps to areas monitored for the potential presence of silver carp, we used juvenile silver carp to simulate the barge transport of dead bigheaded carp carcasses, slime residue, and predator feces to determine the potential of these sources to supply DNA to uninhabited waters where it could be detected and misinterpreted as indicative of the presence of live bigheaded carp. Our results indicate that all three vectors are feasible sources of detectable eDNA for at least one month after their deposition. This suggests that current monitoring programs must consider alternative vectors of DNA in the environment and consider alternative strategies to minimize the detection of DNA not directly released from live bigheaded carps.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Australia 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 211 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 20%
Researcher 43 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 17%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Other 9 4%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 40 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 80 36%
Environmental Science 56 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 12%
Engineering 4 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 2%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 43 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 March 2021.
All research outputs
#4,509,231
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#61,852
of 194,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,351
of 360,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,054
of 4,845 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 360,537 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,845 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.