↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Brazil 2 1%
Australia 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 123 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 22%
Researcher 27 20%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Unspecified 8 6%
Other 25 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 69 51%
Environmental Science 32 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 12%
Unspecified 9 7%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 6 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,514,886
of 12,521,282 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#46,943
of 137,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,619
of 285,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#1,134
of 3,053 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,521,282 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 137,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 285,710 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,053 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 61% of its contemporaries.