ArticlePloS one2026
Accessible and cost-effective deployment of environmental DNA (eDNA) samplers for sediment conducive to supporting community-based surveys.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of at-risk, invasive, and sentinel species are measures of biodiversity, however it is often challenging to quickly gather reliable data through conventional, time-constrained surveying techniques. Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection is one method that has proven to be extremely useful for biomonitoring, particularly due to its non-invasive nature, cost efficiency, sensitivity, accuracy, and relative ease to carry out in the field. Conventional sediment sampling presents a challenge to obtain suitable representative samples and there is a need for easily accessible methods that are compatible with community-based monitoring activities and budgets. Herein, we introduce a "FloppE-Dip" method, a passive sampling approach that is compatible with larger sand sediment sample volumes up to 180 mL and utilizes easily accessible materials. We compared the FloppE-Dip method to conventional filtration through the detection of several species' DNA from environmental samples using real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR). In a laboratory study using an American bullfrog (Rana [Lithobates] catesbeiana) tissue slurry, we determined optimal protocol parameters that were then applied in a field survey to identify beaches in coastal British Columbia used by the important forage fish, the Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes personatus). Of the 20 sampling sites, both FloppE-Dip and conventional filtration methods detected Pacific sand lance eDNA at 14 of them, albeit FloppE-Dip copies/L estimates were typically 5-10 times lower. Two sites returned no detections for both methods, and four sites returned low detections using conventional filtration methods where the FloppE-Dip method showed no detection. This discrepancy at low copy numbers may be rectified through increasing the number of samples taken per site and/or increasing the number of technical replicates. Overall, the FloppE-Dip method was more reliable than visual observation and is considerably faster and cheaper than filtration making it well-suited for general detection purposes. While other sediment types remain to be tested, the simplicity, efficiency, and use of readily available materials make FloppE-Dip a viable alternative for community-based monitoring programs, particularly given the time and budget constraints these programs often face.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.