Comparative efficacy of eDNA and conventional methods for monitoring wetland anuran communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Documenting biodiversity, species occurrence, and species status require reliable monitoring techniques, but the complex life history and cryptic behavior of many anurans create challenges for conventional monitoring approaches. Environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys are a promising alternative (or complement) to conventional anuran monitoring, but their relative success has not been fully tested. We assessed the comparative efficacy of targeted eDNA detection via quantitative PCR (qPCR) and three conventional amphibian survey methods (visual encounter, breeding call, and larval dipnet surveys) for detecting nine anuran species in natural wetlands in southern Ontario, Canada. Our analyses revealed that all assessment methods yielded imperfect detection, with visual encounter and eDNA surveys detecting the greatest species richness and eDNA surveys requiring the fewest sampling events. Amphibian community composition results differed among survey methods and sampling events, and detection efficacy was markedly variable, with some species requiring two to three methods to maximize detection success. Notably, two relatively terrestrial species ( Anaxyrus americanus and Hyla versicolor ) had relatively low and seasonally variable eDNA detection rates, suggesting that species-specific ecology likely affects eDNA presence or detection. These findings suggest that optimized monitoring for complex anuran communities may require application of multiple monitoring methods, which may need to be tailored to individual target species or communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".