At the forefront: evidence of the applicability of using environmental DNA to quantify the abundance of fish populations in natural lentic waters with additional sampling considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling has proven to be a valuable tool for detecting species in aquatic ecosystems. Within this rapidly evolving field, a promising application is the ability to obtain quantitative estimates of relative species abundance based on eDNA concentration rather than traditionally labor-intensive methods. We investigated the relationship between eDNA concentration and Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) abundance in five well-studied natural lakes; additionally, we examined the effects of different temporal (e.g., season) and spatial (e.g., depth) scales on eDNA concentration. Concentrations of eDNA were linearly correlated with char population estimates ([Formula: see text] = 0.78) and exponentially correlated with char densities ([Formula: see text] = 0.96 by area; 0.82 by volume). Across lakes, eDNA concentrations were greater and more homogeneous in the water column during mixis; however, when stratified, eDNA concentrations were greater in the hypolimnion. Overall, our findings demonstrate that eDNA techniques can produce effective estimates of relative fish abundance in natural lakes. These findings can guide future studies to improve and expand eDNA methods while informing research and management using rapid and minimally invasive sampling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".