ZMay61 Reflection Week 3
This week (Feb 7) we discuss a 2016 eDNA paper looking at two different species and their detection at multiple sites over seasonal differences. This paper was very specific when discussing the overall findings and methods. Their criteria was very strict as to what they concluded to be a positive eDNA location for the target species that included controls and multiple samples examined. Knowning that this was published many years ago as a novel-novel technique in the detection of endangered species, a lot of what they did we as a eDNA cohort are thoroughly examining and designing our methods to environmental and historical data. These include but are not limited to specific abiotic factors that may plat a bigger part in the scheme of things for marine and freshwater habitats. Using this paper as an example also shows that the eDNA process has come a long way, but still needs some tweaks when discussing and defining data, such as graphs and/or pictures of the environment. The need to understand the natural history of the target organisms is a crucial step in the right direction to establish a baseline of information of a target species. These papers using similar and different methods for hypothesizing our own research will be beneficial and make sure that we are asking the right questions and that we are able to answer those questions.