MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2499406097 · doi:10.1111/jfb.13086

Laboratory and field validation of a simple method for detecting four species of non‐native freshwater fish using <scp>eDNA</scp>

2016· article· en· W2499406097 on OpenAlexaff
Phil I. Davison, Véronique Créach, Wei Liang, Demetra Andreou, J. Robert Britton, Gordon H. Copp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinnowBiologyPimephales promelasLepomisFreshwater fishEnvironmental DNAFisheryCyprinidaeFish <Actinopterygii>CentrarchidaeEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the first phase in the development and validation of a simple and reliable environmental (e)DNA method using conventional PCR to detect four species of non-native freshwater fish: pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus, sunbleak Leucaspius delineatus, fathead minnow Pimephales promelas and topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva. The efficacy of the approach was demonstrated in indoor tank (44 l) trials in which all four species were detected within 24 h. Validation was through two field trials, in which L. gibbosus was detected 6-12 h after its introduction into outdoor experimental ponds and P. parva was successfully detected in disused fish rearing ponds where the species was known to exist. Thus, the filtration of small (30 ml) volumes of pond water was sufficient to capture fish eDNA and the approach emphasised the importance of taking multiple water samples of sufficient spatial coverage for detecting species of random or patchy distribution.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207