Compact and automated eDNA sampler for in situ monitoring of marine environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using environmental DNA (eDNA) to monitor biodiversity in aquatic environments is becoming an efficient and cost-effective alternative to other methods such as visual and acoustic identification. Until recently, eDNA sampling was accomplished primarily through manual sampling methods; however, with technological advances, automated samplers are being developed to make sampling easier and more accessible. This paper describes a new eDNA sampler capable of self-cleaning and multi-sample capture and preservation, all within a single unit capable of being deployed by a single person. The first in-field test of this sampler took place in the Bedford Basin, Nova Scotia, Canada alongside parallel samples taken using the typical Niskin bottle collection and post-collection filtration method. Both methods were able to capture the same aquatic microbial community and counts of representative DNA sequences were well correlated between methods with R[Formula: see text] values ranging from 0.71-0.93. The two collection methods returned the same top 10 families in near identical relative abundance, demonstrating that the sampler was able to capture the same community composition of common microbes as the Niskin. The presented eDNA sampler provides a robust alternative to manual sampling methods, is amenable to autonomous vehicle payload constraints, and will facilitate persistent monitoring of remote and inaccessible sites.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".