MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015290936 · doi:10.1002/edn3.83

Validation of an environmental DNA protocol to detect a stream‐breeding amphibian, the Streamside Salamander (<i>Ambystoma barbouri</i>)

2020· article· en· W3015290936 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole A. Witzel, Ali Taheri, Brian T. Miller, R. Hardman, David I. Withers, Stephen F. Spear, William B. Sutton

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental DNA · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSalamanderEnvironmental DNAAmphibianBiologyEcologySTREAMSZoologyBiodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Environmental DNA (eDNA), or DNA that is shed into the environment by an organism, can be used to detect the presence of cryptic species. However, eDNA methodology requires validation of an assay in both laboratory and field environments. Here, we describe the development of a quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay and field protocol for detecting a secretive amphibian, the Streamside Salamander ( Ambystoma barbouri). This fossorial species is rarely encountered because adults are only active for several months during the winter when they breed and deposit eggs underneath rocks within intermittent streams. We designed and validated a qPCR assay for A. barbouri against five ambystomatid congeners and the Southern Two‐lined Salamander ( Eurycea cirrigera ), which occur within the range of A. barbouri in the focal study area. We detected DNA of A. barbouri in the laboratory to 0.0004 ng/µl, while all other congeners were rarely detected below 40 ng/µl. We collected 1‐L water samples from 45 streams from December 2016 to May 2017 and during April 2018 to validate our methods in the field. Our assay was effective at detecting A. barbouri in 24 of 45 streams. We confirmed physical presence of A. barbouri (adults, larvae, and/or eggs) at 21 out of 24 of these positive sites. The detection probability was 0.85 ± 0.05; CI: 0.75, 0.95 within a single sampling event that incorporated 5 water samples from each of 17 repeat‐visit sites. The per water sample sensitivity was 68% (163/238) and specificity was 100% (22/22). The per site visit sensitivity was 85% (46/54) and specificity was 100% (6/6). Lastly, the per site sensitivity was 95% (21/22) and specificity was 100% (3/3). Collectively, this protocol outlines an efficient and cost‐effective method to detect A. barbouri and provides a technique to rapidly identify sites where breeding is occurring and to determine the distribution of this species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental DNASame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207