Airborne eDNA documents a diverse and ecologically complex tropical bat and other mammal community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Environmental (e)DNA has rapidly become a powerful biomonitoring tool, particularly in aquatic ecosystems. This approach has not been as widely adopted in terrestrial communities where the methods of vertebrate eDNA collection have varied from the use of secondary collectors such as blood feeding parasites and spider webs, to washing surfaces of leaves and soil sampling. Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of direct collection of eDNA from air sampling, but none have tested how effective airborne eDNA sampling might be in a biodiverse environment. We used three prototype samplers to actively sample a mixed neotropical bat community in a partially controlled environment. We assess whether airborne eDNA can accurately characterize a high diversity community with skewed abundances and to determine if filter design impacts DNA collection and taxonomic recovery. Our study provides evidence for the accuracy of airborne eDNA as a detection tool and highlights its potential for monitoring high density, diverse assemblages such as bat roosts. Analysis of air samples recovered >91% of the species present and some limited relationship between species abundance and read count. Our data suggests this method can accurately depict a diverse mixed‐mammal community, particularly when the location is contained (e.g., a roost, den or burrow) but also highlights the potential for secondary transfer of eDNA material on clothing and equipment. Our results also demonstrate that simple, inexpensive, battery‐operated homemade air samplers can collect an abundance of eDNA from the air, opening the opportunity for sampling in remote environments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".