Environmental DNA as a management tool for tracking artificial waterhole use in savanna ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Game parks are the last preserve of many large mammals, and in savanna ecosystems, management of surface waters poses a conservation challenge. In arid and semi-arid regions, water can be a scarce resource during dry seasons and drought. Artificial waterholes are common in parks and reserves across Africa, but can alter mammal community composition by favoring drought intolerant species, with consequences for disease dynamics, and population viability of drought-tolerant species. Analysis of waterborne environmental DNA (eDNA) is increasingly used to inform conservation of rare and invasive species, and conduct large-scale biodiversity assessments. To explore the reliability of eDNA as an indicator of mammal waterhole use in savannas, we compare eDNA metabarcoding and camera traps for documenting artificial waterhole use in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, a global hotspot for mammal diversity. We show that eDNA metabarcoding can recover the majority of mammal species detected by camera traps, including a number of endangered species, but DNA signatures of mammal visitation are temporally limited, with best performance when tracking water-dependent large bodied mammals visiting within two days of sampling. Our results highlight limitation of eDNA based monitoring in these systems, including the lack of long-term eDNA persistence in small and highly utilized waterholes, and variability in detection rates among species. However, we demonstrate that eDNA-based approaches can be used to track mammals of conservation concern, and reflect patterns of recent waterhole use and co-occurrence across water-dependent species, both of which are crucial for making evidence-based decisions regarding water management and provisioning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".