MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376275248 · doi:10.1002/edn3.424

Including environmental covariates clarifies the relationship between endangered Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) abundance and environmental <scp>DNA</scp>

2023· article· en· W4376275248 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Morrison, Anaïs Lacoursière‐Roussel, Zachary T. Wood, Marc Trudel, Nellie Gagné, Francis LeBlanc, Kurt M. Samways, Michael T. Kinnison, Scott A. Pavey

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental DNA · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsFisheries and Oceans CanadaNew Brunswick Innovation FoundationCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsSalmoEnvironmental DNAAbundance (ecology)EcologyHabitatFisheryBiologyRelative species abundanceEndangered speciesSampling (signal processing)Environmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>Biodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Collecting environmental DNA (eDNA) as a nonlethal sampling approach has been valuable in detecting the presence/absence of many imperiled taxa; however, its application to indicate species abundance poses many challenges. A deeper understanding of eDNA dynamics in aquatic systems is required to better interpret the substantial variability often associated with eDNA samples. Our sampling design took advantage of natural variation in juvenile Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) distribution and abundance along 9 km of a single river in the Province of New Brunswick (Canada), covering different spatial and temporal scales to address the unknown seasonal impacts of environmental variables on the quantitative relationship between eDNA concentration and species abundance. First, we asked whether accounting for environmental variables strengthened the relationship between eDNA and salmon abundance by sampling eDNA during their spring seaward migration. Second, we asked how environmental variables affected eDNA dynamics during the summer as the parr abundance remained relatively constant. Spring eDNA samples were collected over a 6‐week period (12 times) near a rotary screw trap that captured approximately 18.6% of migrating smolts, whereas summer sampling occurred (i) at three distinct salmon habitats (9 times) and (ii) along the full 9 km (3 times). We modeled eDNA concentration as a product of fish abundance and environmental variables, demonstrating that (1) with inclusion of abundance and environmental covariates, eDNA was highly correlated with spring smolt abundance and (2) the relationships among environmental covariates and eDNA were affected by seasonal variation with relatively constant parr abundance in summer. Our findings underscore that with appropriate study design that accounts for seasonal environmental variation and life history phenology, eDNA salmon population assessments may have the potential to evaluate abundance fluctuations in spring and summer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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