Modeling cetacean eDNA distribution along the Washington coast using metabarcoding from opportunistic samples and generalized additive models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Effective cetacean conservation depends on robust monitoring, yet traditional visual and passive-acoustic surveys have constraints. We evaluated environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding coupled with species distribution modeling (SDM) as a tool to study habitat use of cetaceans along the Washington State coast, USA. Seawater was collected at the surface and at a 50 m depth from 43 sites (86 samples) during the 2019 U.S.–Canada Integrated Ecosystem & Acoustic-Trawl Survey. A partial section of the mitochondrial control region was amplified with cetacean - specific primers, sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq, and taxonomically assigned with a curated reference database. Nine species were detected; we modelled the three most frequent: Pacific white-sided dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ) (10 detections), humpback whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) (8 detections), and Risso’s dolphin ( Grampus griseus ) (6 detections). Binomial generalized additive models related presence-absence to bathymetry, distance to shore, longitude, slope, and sea-surface temperature; model performance was assessed with stratified five-fold cross-validation. SDMs explained 17–51% of null deviance and presented high specificity (≥ 0.80). The Pacific white-sided dolphin showed the highest eDNA presence probabilities offshore, beyond the shelf break. Humpback whale eDNA presence probabilities showed hotspots along the shelf break with secondary high-probability patches in near-shore waters. Risso’s dolphin eDNA presence probabilities were elevated in offshore zones characterized by steep bathymetric gradients, particularly northwest of the sampled transect. These spatial patterns are consistent with historical visual–acoustic records, suggesting that eDNA-informed SDMs can capture cetacean habitat use. This proof of concept indicates that combining eDNA detections with flexible SDMs could provide a cost-effective, non-invasive complement to conventional surveys and may offer a scalable pathway for marine-mammal monitoring and spatial planning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".