MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213006239 · doi:10.1002/edn3.286

Environmental DNA detection and abundance estimates comparable to conventional methods for three freshwater larval species at a power plant discharge

2022· article· en· W4213006239 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas Bradley, Kevin C. Morey, Danielle Bourque, Brooks Fost, Tzitziki Loeza‐Quintana, Robert Hanner

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental DNA · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersElectric Power Research Institute
KeywordsAlewifeDorosomaGizzard shadNettingEnvironmental DNABiologyFisheryIchthyoplanktonAbundance (ecology)PerchEcologyRelative species abundanceSampling (signal processing)BiodiversityFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Early life stage (ELS) fishes provide a valuable metric for species, population, and ecosystem monitoring. Industrial, manufacturing, and power generating facilities in the United States can be required to monitor ELS fishes to assess impacts of facility intake waters. Traditional methods for collecting, identifying, and enumerating ELS fishes include ichthyoplankton netting and pumping from intake and discharge waters. However, sampling at these sites can prove challenging from logistical and safety standpoints, with added challenges of identifying and post‐processing of ELS fishes to quantify facility impacts on waterbodies for regulatory purposes. Methods utilizing environmental DNA (eDNA) may offer improvements in these areas. This study assessed the utility of novel, species‐specific qPCR assays to detect eDNA from three differentially abundant fish species (alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus ; Wilson , 1811 ), gizzard shad ( Dorosoma cepedianum ; Lesueur , 1818 ), and yellow perch ( Perca flavescens ; Mitchill , 1814 )) at the outflow of an industrial site. eDNA concentrations were compared with abundance estimates derived from two conventional collection methods to explore the potential utility of eDNA‐based methods in future monitoring. The likelihood of detecting gizzard shad, yellow perch, and alewife in the discharge waters of the power generation station was not significantly different among eDNA, plankton netting, or pump sampling. Results suggest successful detections differ by species and time of year for each method. Gizzard shad eDNA relative abundance correlated strongly with total larval abundances captured by the pumping but not the netting methods, whereas yellow perch eDNA abundance was found to correlate with both conventional methods. Alewife was not detected by any method, consistent with documentation of the decline in this species within the lake. Overall, our study found a positive relationship between eDNA abundance and larval fish abundance in both daily and seasonal sampling, suggesting that fluctuations in eDNA concentration may be linked to larval 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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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