MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2232869784 · doi:10.1002/aqc.2617

Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection and habitat occupancy of threatened spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus)

2016· article· en· W2232869784 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret Boothroyd, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Michael Fox, Chris C. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoTrent UniversityMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental DNAOccupancyThreatened speciesEndangered speciesHabitatNettingBiologyEcologyFisheryBiodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Determining the occurrence and site occupancy of rare and endangered species can be challenging, particularly without causing harm or stress to the species of concern. Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection was used to assess habitat occupancy by spotted gar ( Lepisosteus oculatus ), which is federally listed as Threatened in Canada, with known occurrences limited to a small number of locations in southern Ontario. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays were developed to detect spotted gar eDNA, which was detected in all but one previously recorded location. The eDNA method was shown to be more effective than traditional netting for detecting spotted gar habitat use. The use of qPCR allowed for quantification of substantial variation in detection strength (copy number) among replicate eDNA samples, with implications for establishing sampling designs for detection and surveillance. The use of eDNA for detection and monitoring of aquatic species of conservation concern shows great potential as a non‐invasive method for assessing species occurrences and habitat occupancy, as well as for informing targeted sampling by conventional capture methods. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207