Considerations for incorporating real-time PCR assays into routine marine biosecurity surveillance programmes: a case study targeting the Mediterranean fanworm (<i>Sabella spallanzanii</i>) and club tunicate (<i>Styela clava</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular techniques may provide effective tools to enhance marine biosecurity surveillance. Prior to routine implementation, evidence-based consideration of their benefits and limitations is needed. In this study, we assessed the efficiency and practicality of visual diver surveys and real-time PCR assays (targeting DNA and RNA) for detecting two marine invasive species whose infestation levels varied between species and location: Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava. Filtered water samples (n = 171) were collected in parallel with dive surveys at two locations as part of the New Zealand Marine High Risk Site Surveillance programme: Nelson Harbour (27 sites) and Waitemata Harbour (30 sites). Diver surveys resulted in a greater number of detections compared to real-time PCR: S. clava – 21 versus 5 sites in Nelson, 6 versus 1 in Auckland; S. spallanzanii – 18 versus 10 in Auckland, no detections in Nelson. Occupancy modelling derived detection probabilities for the real-time PCR for S. clava were low (14%), compared to S. spallanzanii (66%). This could be related to abundances, or species-specific differences in DNA shedding. Only one RNA sample was positive, suggesting that most detections were from extracellular DNA or non-viable fragments. While molecular methods cannot yet replace visual observations, this study shows they provide useful complementary information.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.166 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".