MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324029273 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2022-0162

Environmental DNA (eDNA) applications in freshwater fisheries management and conservation in Canada: overview of current challenges and opportunities

2023· article· en· W4324029273 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Thaïs A. Bernos, Matthew C. Yates, Margaret F. Docker, Amy Fitzgerald, Robert Hanner, Daniel D. Heath, Arshad Imrit, John Livernois, Erika Myler, Keta Patel, Sapna Sharma, Robert G. Young, Nicholas E. Mandrak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of GuelphUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Toronto
FundersGovernment of CanadaOntario GenomicsOntario Genomics InstituteGenome Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental DNAEnvironmental resource managementContext (archaeology)FisheryEnvironmental planningGeographyFisheries managementSampling (signal processing)Fish <Actinopterygii>BiodiversityScale (ratio)EcologyFishingBiologyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring methods have played a significant role in improving fisheries management decisions. Yet, their impact to date has been rather limited in Canada, where eDNA sampling and analyses are only beginning to be used to inform management and conservation decisions, practices, and policies. Studies investigating hurdles to the incorporation of eDNA evidence into fisheries management decisions generally focus on technical challenges (i.e., risks of false-positive and false-negative detections). We set out to identify challenges that eDNA researchers and conservation practitioners must overcome to fully unlock the benefits of eDNA sampling for fish management in the Canadian context. We discuss aspects of the broad and heterogeneous geography, preponderance of regions located far from densely populated areas, complex political landscape, and cultural diversity of Canada that may complicate the design of reliable eDNA monitoring tools or restrict their use if not adequately addressed. To advocate for the wider use of eDNA sampling, we outline a number of action items that would facilitate the broad adoption of eDNA sampling as a monitoring tool at the Canadian scale.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.137 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations32
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207