Cited by 99Environmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Environmental DNA metabarcoding read numbers and their variability predict species abundance, but weakly in non‐dominant species

Open access
Skelton, James, Cauvin, Allison, Hunter, Margaret E.·2023·Environmental DNA

Abstract

Metabarcoding of environmental DNA (eDNA) provides more comprehensive, efficient, and non‐invasive sampling of biological communities than conventional methods. However, limitations of metabarcoding include taxon‐specific biases in amplification and sequencing that distort assessments of community composition. Further, hyper‐abundant species may disproportionately affect community composition assessments and impair the detection of rare species (i.e., “species masking”). In this study, we examine methodological approaches to improve eDNA metabarcoding assessments of community structure using fish community diversity in a pond in south Florida using MiFish primers modified to improve cichlid detection. Mitochondrial 12S eDNA amplicon sequencing via Illumina NovaSeq was analyzed using the DADA2 model‐based exact sequence inference. The fish species and abundances in the system were recorded during piscicide treatment and subsequent native species restocking. Our results demonstrate that (1) ultra‐high‐throughput sequencing on the newer NovaSeq patterned flow cell provided reliable detection of very rare taxa—with detections of a single individual. (2) Read numbers were significantly correlated to the total surface area of the fish population, and numerical abundance to a lesser degree; however, dominant taxa largely drove those correlations, and simulations showed that biases in the most abundant taxa will have disproportionate effects on the strength of the correlation. (3) The read number coefficient of variation for each species across spatially separated replicate samples may provide less biased abundance estimates compared with estimates based on average read counts. Finally, (4) exact sequence inference detected multiple haplotypes and population genetic diversity within a species. Our results demonstrate the real‐world metabarcoding capacity to reveal community structure and reliably detect rare species and unique haplotypes and shows that read numbers can, to a limited degree, be used to infer the size of fish populations. Careful examination of detection biases among dominant taxa and spatial variation among samples are required for rigorous eDNA‐based estimates of community structure. Our results demonstrate the capacity of NovaSeq metabarcoding to reveal freshwater fish community structure and reliably detect rare species and unique haplotypes. Metabarcoding read numbers were significantly correlated to the total surface area of the fish species' populations, allowing for conditional inferences of population sizes. However, dominant taxa largely drove those correlations, and simulations indicated that biases toward the most abundant taxa will have disproportionate effects on the strength of the correlation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/edn3.355

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Passing samples through an 8-mm sieve separates larger and smaller insects, opening the avenue for using read numbers for abundance estimates.

    “The samples were then passed through an 8-mm sieve, thereby separating larger and smaller insects, opening the avenue for using read numbers for abundance estimates64.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Skelton, J., Cauvin, A., & Hunter, M. E.
Affiliations
  • William & Mary (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Skelton, James
  • Hunter, Margaret E.
Venue
Environmental DNA
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-09-30
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
1092-1104
ISSN
2637-4943 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4298142583
Cited by
99
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 1
FWCI
8.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental DNA (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
eDNA metabarcoding, species abundance estimation, rare species detection, fish community structure, haplotype diversity, population genetic variation, freshwater fish

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review