MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401153441 · doi:10.1002/wat2.1749

A new flow path: <scp>eDNA</scp> connecting hydrology and biology

2024· article· en· W4401153441 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn R. URycki, Anish Kirtane, Rachel Aronoff, Carlos Arturo Bohórquez Ávila, Rosetta C. Blackman, Luca Carraro, Olivier Evrard, Stephen P. Good, Diana Carolina Hoyos Jaramillo, Nieves López‐Rodríguez, Demetrio Mora, Yvonne Schadewell, Oliver S. Schilling, Natalie Ceperley

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversität ZürichDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversity of BernSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungDivision of Earth SciencesEuropean Research CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Path (computing)Hydrology (agriculture)GeologyComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringComputer networkPhysicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Environmental DNA (eDNA) has revolutionized ecological research, particularly for biodiversity assessment in various environments, most notably aquatic media. Environmental DNA analysis allows for non‐invasive and rapid species detection across multiple taxonomic groups within a single sample, making it especially useful for identifying rare or invasive species. Due to dynamic hydrological processes, eDNA samples from running waters may represent biodiversity from broad contributing areas, which is convenient from a biomonitoring perspective but also challenging, as hydrological knowledge is required for meaningful biological interpretation. Hydrologists could also benefit from eDNA to address unsolved questions, particularly concerning water movement through catchments. While naturally occurring abiotic tracers have advanced our understanding of water age distribution in catchments, for example, current geochemical tracers cannot fully elucidate the timing and flow paths of water through landscapes. Conversely, biological tracers, owing to their immense diversity and interactions with the environment, could offer more detailed information on the sources and flow paths of water to the stream. The informational capacity of eDNA as a tracer, however, is determined by the ability to interpret the complex biological heterogeneity at a study site, which arguably requires both biological and hydrological expertise. As eDNA data has become increasingly available as part of biomonitoring campaigns, we argue that accompanying eDNA surveys with hydrological observations could enhance our understanding of both biological and hydrological processes; we identify opportunities, challenges, and needs for further interdisciplinary collaboration; and we highlight eDNA's potential as a bridge between hydrology and biology, which could foster both domains. This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Hydrological Processes Science of Water > Methods Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.013

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations27
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews WaterSame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207