A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Early detection monitoring for non-indigenous fishes; comparison of survey approaches during two species introductions in a Great Lakes port. | LitMetric

Assessing relative performance of different sampling methods used for early detection monitoring (EDM) is a critical step in understanding the likelihood of detecting new non-indigenous species (NIS) in an environment of interest. EDM performance metrics are typically based on the probability of detecting established NIS or rare indigenous species; however, detection probability estimates for these proxies may not accurately reflect survey effectiveness for newly introduced NIS. We used data from three different EDM survey approaches that varied by targeted life-stage (adult-juvenile versus ichthyoplankton), media (physical fish versus environmental DNA), and taxonomic method (morphology-based versus DNA-based taxonomy) to explore relative detection sensitivity for recently introduced white bass () and gizzard shad () in the Port of Duluth-Superior, a NIS introduction hot spot within the Laurentian Great Lakes. Detection efficiency, measured by the effort (number of samples) required to achieve 95% probability of detection, differed by EDM approach and species. Also, the relative sensitivity (detection rate) of each survey approach differed by species. For both species, detection in surveys using DNA-based taxonomy was generally as good or better than the adult-juvenile survey using morphology-based taxonomy. While both species appear to have been detected at early stages of invasion, white bass were likely present up to 5 years prior to initial detection, whereas gizzard shad may have been detected in the first year of introduction. We conclude that using complimentary sampling methods can help to balance the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and provide more reliable early detection of new invaders.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8958937PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02655-9DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

early detection
12
detection
9
detection monitoring
8
survey approaches
8
great lakes
8
sampling methods
8
species detection
8
dna-based taxonomy
8
white bass
8
gizzard shad
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!