An Open Data Framework for the San Francisco Estuary

Baerwald, Melinda R.; Davis, Brian A.; Lesmeister, Sarah; Mahardja, Brian; Pisor, Rachel; Rinde, Jenna; Schreier, Brian M.; Tobias, Vanessa

doi:10.15447/sfews.2020v18iss2art1

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More generally, the creation of a regional eDNA science advisory panel (for example, for the SFE), composed of outside experts, could advance the application of eDNA methods by acting as a sounding board for ideas and providing recommendations. Finally, all eDNA detection studies should be conducted using an open data framework to ensure transparency and reproducibility (Baerwald et al 2020a;Goldberg et al 2016).…”

Section: Recommendations For Enhancing Collaboration Between Edna Sci...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental DNA Methods for Ecological Monitoring and Biodiversity Assessment in Estuaries

Nagarajan

Bedwell²,

Holmes

et al. 2022

Estuaries and Coasts

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection methods can complement traditional biomonitoring to yield new ecological insights in aquatic systems. However, the conceptual and methodological frameworks for aquatic eDNA detection and interpretation were developed primarily in freshwater environments and have not been well established for estuaries and marine environments that are by nature dynamic, turbid, and hydrologically complex. Environmental context and species life history are critical for successful application of eDNA methods, and the challenges associated with eDNA detection in estuaries were the subject of a symposium held at the University of California Davis on January 29, 2020 (https://marinescience.ucdavis.edu/engagement/past-events/edna). Here, we elaborate upon topics addressed in the symposium to evaluate eDNA methods in the context of monitoring and biodiversity studies in estuaries. We first provide a concise overview of eDNA science and methods, and then examine the San Francisco Estuary (SFE) as a case study to illustrate how eDNA detection can complement traditional monitoring programs and provide regional guidance on future potential eDNA applications. Additionally, we offer recommendations for enhancing communication between eDNA scientists and natural resource managers, which is essential for integrating eDNA methods into existing monitoring programs. Our intent is to create a resource that is accessible to those outside the field of eDNA, especially managers, without oversimplifying the challenges or advantages of these methods.

show abstract

Section: Recommendations For Enhancing Collaboration Between Edna Sci...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental DNA Methods for Ecological Monitoring and Biodiversity Assessment in Estuaries

Nagarajan

Bedwell²,

Holmes

et al. 2022

Estuaries and Coasts

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, more could be done. In the case of government agencies, for example, managers and supervisors could include data publication in job duty statements, value it in performance reviews, and give staff the time needed to do it (Baerwald et al, 2020). Similarly, universities could incorporate the publication of high‐quality datasets into academic reward systems.…”

Section: Barriers To Open Data and Open Water Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, as Baerwald et al (2020) have observed, scientists are often either unaware of the benefits of open data or do not know how to make their data open. This could be helped by more empirical studies measuring the value of different kinds of open water data, as well as more educational guidance resources.…”

Section: Barriers To Open Data and Open Water Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With more knowledge and awareness, agency scientists working in long‐term monitoring programs can communicate the value of open data to supervisors. This has the potential upshot of securing dedicated time and resources for open data‐related tasks, thus reducing the barrier of insufficient capacity (Baerwald et al, 2020).…”

Section: Barriers To Open Data and Open Water Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social barriers to open (water) data

Sugg

2021

WIREs Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the proliferation of open water data platforms and initiatives in recent years is a laudable phenomenon, there is little empirical evidence indicating whether and to what extent these efforts are generating anticipated benefits of improved transparency, citizen participation, innovation, and water resource decision making. Relatedly, water resource researchers have devoted little attention to identifying and accounting for barriers that may be limiting open water data efforts from realizing their potential. The premise of this overview is that (a) open water data efforts could be improved with a better understanding of the non‐technical challenges and that (b) water researchers interested in open water data would benefit from delving into the emerging body of research in public policy, information science, and other disciplines on open data barriers more broadly. However, the research on open data barriers has neglected water sustainability issues. In light of this asymmetry, the aim of this overview is to foster interdisciplinary engagement on this topic by introducing the water resource community to this literature via a discussion of key social barriers to open data. Additionally, I hope to motivate water resource researchers to develop a two‐way interdisciplinary engagement by making original research contributions to this larger literature. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water Science of Water > Methods Human Water > Water Governance Human Water > Water as Imagined and Represented

show abstract

“…Aquatic ecosystems worldwide have been rapidly degraded as a result of anthropogenic effects, leading to the development of ecological monitoring programs in order to understand and manage these changes (Radinger et al 2019). This is especially true for the San Francisco Estuary (estuary) and its watershed, where a variety of monitoring programs are in place that extend back multiple decades (Honey et al 2004;Baerwald et al 2020). A considerable number of these monitoring programs in the estuary target either a particular fish species of concern…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Role of Boat Electrofishing in Fish Monitoring of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta

McKenzie

Mahardja

2021

SFEWS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The San Francisco Estuary is an incredibly diverse ecosystem with a mosaic of aquatic habitats inhabited by a number of economically, culturally, and ecologically important fish species. To monitor the temporal and spatial trends of this rich fish community, long-term fish monitoring programs within the estuary use a variety of gear types to capture fish species across life stages and habitats. However, concerns have been raised that current sampling gears may fail to detect certain species—or life stages—that inhabit areas that are not accessible by current gear types (e.g., riprap banks, shallow vegetated areas). Boat electrofishing is one sampling method that has been proposed to supplement current long-term fish monitoring in the upper estuary. In this study, we used fish catch data from past boat electrofishing studies, a long-term beach seine survey, and a couple of long-running trawl surveys to compare the relative probability of detecting various fishes across these sampling gears. Overall, we found that boat electrofishing led to notable improvements in the detection rates for many native and non-native fishes we examined. Boat electrofishing gear was better at detecting the majority of species in the spring (20 out of 38 species, 53%) and fall-winter (24 out of 34 species, 70%) sampling periods. Based on these findings, we recommend that resource managers consider the implementation of a long-term boat electrofishing survey to help them in their long-term conservation planning for fishes within the upper estuary.

show abstract

An Open Data Framework for the San Francisco Estuary

Cited by 3 publications

References 22 publications

Environmental DNA Methods for Ecological Monitoring and Biodiversity Assessment in Estuaries

Environmental DNA Methods for Ecological Monitoring and Biodiversity Assessment in Estuaries

Social barriers to open (water) data

Evaluating the Role of Boat Electrofishing in Fish Monitoring of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About