MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134267451 · doi:10.3897/aca.4.e65156

There's always a better way: The application of eDNA to effectively assess biodiversity

2021· article· en· W3134267451 on OpenAlexafffundabout
P.K. Roy, Mary Thiess

Bibliographic record

VenueARPHA Conference Abstracts · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsParks Canada
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsBiodiversityEnvironmental resource managementEcosystemEnvironmental DNAPopulationAbundance (ecology)Trophic levelPsychological resilienceScale (ratio)EcologyEnvironmental changeResilience (materials science)GeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyClimate changeCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our ecosystem monitoring methodologies focus on data collection for reporting purposes that may not serve to identify the systematic causes of ecological change. Managers need precise and timely information at appropriate scales to build ecosystem resilience. Traditional species detection methodologies offer little information when species abundance are low, especially in large water ecosystems such as the Great Lakes. Species not found during monitoring doesn’t necessarily mean that species are absent. Moreover, even if a change in the ecosystem is detected, it is often not possible to determine its cause at a spatiotemporal scale or a trophic cascade level. As a result, we often find ourselves being reactive in our mitigation measures. Before irreversible change occurs, we must be guided by a better understanding of the actual ecological landscape which Environmental DNA (eDNA) may help provide. eDNA is a potential tool to effectively overcome traditional species survey limitations currently in use at many Parks Canada sites (Supplemental file 1). As various organisms interact with the environment, DNA is expelled and accumulates in their surroundings. Such samples can be analyzed by high-throughput DNA sequencing methods for rapid measurement and monitoring of biodiversity. Access to this genetic information makes a critical contribution to the understanding of population size, species distribution, and population dynamics for species not well documented. Despite the increasing use of eDNA in conservation practice, it requires further methodological improvement for greater influence on management decisions. The tool requires standardized protocols based on site-specific covariates and objectives. We’re working to tackle the challenge with 2 objectives: (1) to combine traditional biomonitoring knowledge and metagenomics to further develop eDNA as a reliable sampling tool for Parks Canada and (2) to support site-specific monitoring objectives for species-at-risk, invasive species, aquatic species inventories, and/or culturally significant species. The overall goal is to increase our capacity to make more informed, timely, regionally-coordinated conservation decisions through the rapid and sensitive species detection methods offered by eDNA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARPHA Conference AbstractsSame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207