Meta‐analysis supports further refinement of eDNA for monitoring aquatic species‐specific abundance in nature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of eDNA to detect the presence/absence of rare or invasive species is well documented and its use in biodiversity monitoring is expanding. Preliminary laboratory research has also shown a positive correlation between the concentration of species‐specific eDNA particles and the density/biomass of a species in a given environment. However, the extent to which these results can be extended to natural environments has yet to be formally quantified. We collated data from experiments that examined the correlation between eDNA and two metrics of abundance (biomass and density) and, using mixed‐effects meta‐analysis, quantified the strength of that correlation across laboratory and natural environments. We found that eDNA particle concentration was more strongly correlated with abundance in laboratory environments compared to natural environments, accounting for approximately 82% and 57% of the observed variation in abundance, respectively. We found some evidence of potential publication bias that may have impacted the estimation of the correlation in natural environments; after smaller studies were removed from the dataset, eDNA particle concentration accounted for approximately 50% of the observed variation in abundance in natural environments. No effect of abundance metric was found on the strength of correlation between eDNA particle concentration and abundance. Despite a weaker general correlation in natural environments, eDNA concentration often still explained substantial variation in abundance. eDNA research is still an emergent field of study; with only moderate improvements in technology or technique, it could represent a powerful new tool for quantifying abundance.
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 | 0.056 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".