Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Rees, Helen C.; Gough, Kevin C.; Middleditch, David J.; Patmore, James R.; Maddison, Ben C. (2015)
Publisher: Wiley
Languages: English
Types: Article
1. In Rees et al. (2014b), we reviewed the current status of environmental DNA (eDN A) tomonitor aquatic populations. Our aim was to focus on discus sion of methodologies used,application of eDNA analysis as a survey tool in ecology, and to include some innovativeideas for using eDNA in conservation and management.\ud 2. Roussel et al. (2015) claim that analysis of Rees et al. (2014b) and other publicationshighlights the downsides of the method, and they suggest that some conclusions should betoned down. Many of their arguments were covered in our original paper (Rees et al. ,2014b); however, they make the point that modelling approaches should be encouraged, andwe fully agree with this suggestion.\ud 3. Roussel et al. (2015) also claim that we neglected to recognize that there are two sourcesof imperfect detection (at the field level and at the laboratory level). We feel that our reviewpaper implies this point.\ud 4. Synthesis and applications. Roussel et al. (2015) reiterate many of the points made in theoriginal paper but do cover some additional areas that improve the debate on the use of envi-ronmental DNA (eDNA). Both the comment (Roussel et al., 2015) and our rebuttal clearlyhighlight that detailed laboratory protocols and rigorous field sampling design are crucial fac-tors which require sufficient reporting in the literature to allow for experimenta l comparisonand replication. Any development of a new method for eDNA detection should be compareddirectly with established ‘gold standard’ methods for the detection of the species or habitatunder investigation. None of the issues raised in Roussel et al. (2015) would alter our mainconclusions.
  • No references.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article