4.7 Review

Improving the reliability of eDNA data interpretation

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY RESOURCES
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 1422-1433

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.13367

关键词

barcoding; Bayesian analysis; data fusion; detection probability; eDNA; false positives; metabarcoding; occupancy modelling; sources of error; species distribution modelling

资金

  1. Global Challenges Research Fund, UK
  2. Leibniz Competition [J45/2018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global declines in biodiversity have led to a growing need to monitor threatened species effectively. Molecular survey methods such as eDNA detection have provided new tools for conservation, but are not without errors. Recent advances in data processing tools, occupancy models, and integration of metabarcoding data aim to improve the reliability of eDNA assessments and decision-making processes in conservation planning.
Global declines in biodiversity highlight the need to effectively monitor the density and distribution of threatened species. In recent years, molecular survey methods detecting DNA released by target-species into their environment (eDNA) have been rapidly on the rise. Despite providing new, cost-effective tools for conservation, eDNA-based methods are prone to errors. Best field and laboratory practices can mitigate some, but the risks of errors cannot be eliminated and need to be accounted for. Here, we synthesize recent advances in data processing tools that increase the reliability of interpretations drawn from eDNA data. We review advances in occupancy models to consider spatial data-structures and simultaneously assess rates of false positive and negative results. Further, we introduce process-based models and the integration of metabarcoding data as complementing approaches to increase the reliability of target-species assessments. These tools will be most effective when capitalizing on multi-source data sets collating eDNA with classical survey and citizen-science approaches, paving the way for more robust decision-making processes in conservation planning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据