(7/9)
While current investments efforts mostly use top-down (indirect) data, eDNA enables a bottom-up shift. This empowers local actors (e.g. companies and farmers) to monitor and adjust their practices, and improve outcomes for nature and productivity. 📊

(6/9)
eDNA overcomes biases by capturing more diversity, especially in hard-to-survey groups (e.g. arthropods and microscopic soil fauna). It’s easier to standardize and it works even in poorly studied regions. 🌍
#science

(5/9)
eDNA is revolutionizing data collection by enabling much faster and cheaper processing. For example, a striking case: a Swedish insect survey (from 2003-2006) that would’ve taken 1500 years with experts took just a few months with eDNA. 🧬
#innovation

(4/9)
➡️ eDNA is a recent revolutionary tool that has evolved rapidly. It involves collecting DNA directly from the environment (water, soil, air). One of the major advances has been DNA metabarcoding maturing enough to be used for large-scale, practical biodiversity impact assessments.

(3/9)
Why are there gaps? It’s because traditional biodiversity surveys methods are tough. They need rare expertise, lots of fieldwork, and slow, expensive analysis. This difficulty creates major geographic biases in available data. 🔍
#data

(2/9)
Most biodiversity impact tools that are currently being used in the sector have shortcomings. For example, they usually rely on indirect data and consider few key species. They’re also often geographically biased and not very transparent. 📉
#data

(9/9)
Article source:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti....

@damonmatthews.bsky.social

(8/9)
To introduce eDNA impact assessment in global practice, we should start small. We should focus on sectors like ag and forestry because they rely on local biodiversity and have a direct short-term impact. This way, the info can then help others measure their own impact. 🌿✅

(7/9)
While current investments efforts mostly use top-down (indirect) data, eDNA enables a bottom-up shift. This empowers local actors (e.g. companies and farmers) to monitor and adjust their practices, and improve outcomes for nature and productivity. 📊

(6/9)
eDNA overcomes biases by capturing more diversity, especially in hard-to-survey groups (e.g. arthropods and microscopic soil fauna). It’s easier to standardize and it works even in poorly studied regions. 🌍
#science

(5/9)
eDNA is revolutionizing data collection by enabling much faster and cheaper processing. For example, a striking case: a Swedish insect survey (from 2003-2006) that would’ve taken 1500 years with experts took just a few months with eDNA. 🧬
#innovation

(4/9)
➡️ eDNA is a recent revolutionary tool that has evolved rapidly. It involves collecting DNA directly from the environment (water, soil, air). One of the major advances has been DNA metabarcoding maturing enough to be used for large-scale, practical biodiversity impact assessments.

(3/9)
Why are there gaps? It’s because traditional biodiversity surveys methods are tough. They need rare expertise, lots of fieldwork, and slow, expensive analysis. This difficulty creates major geographic biases in available data. 🔍
#data

(2/9)
Most biodiversity impact tools that are currently being used in the sector have shortcomings. For example, the usually rely on indirect data and consider few key species. They’re also often geographically biased and not very transparent. 📉
#data