A molecular specimen bank for contemporary and future study captures landscape-scale biodiversity baselines before Klamath River dam removal
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Global restoration and conservation of freshwater biodiversity are represented in practice by works such as the Klamath River Renewal Project (KRRP), the largest dam removal and river restoration in the United States, which has reconnected 640 river kilometers. With dam removals, many biological outcomes remain understudied due to a lack of pre-impact data and complex ecosystem recovery timeframes. To avoid this, we created the KRRP molecular library, an environmental specimen bank, for long-term curation of environmental nucleic acids collected from the restoration project. We used these initial samples, environmental DNA metabarcoding, and generalized linear mixed-effects models to evaluate patterns of pre-dam removal fish richness and diversity. Demonstrating the suitability to resolve biological differences, the baseline shows that tributary and mainstem streams had greater native fish diversity and 2.3-10.7 times greater native fish species richness than reservoirs. These and future sampling efforts should, at a minimum, allow tracking of fish community response to ecosystem restoration. Anticipating the acceleration of omics innovation, we preserved samples for long-term storage and identified requisite phases for sustained function and adaptation of the molecular library: securing a physical storage facility for genetic material, establishing a governance structure, and confirming support for archive management.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 98 · Cited by 3
- Authors
- Keel, D. J., Karpenko, K., Blankenship, S. M., Schumer, G., O’Rourke, O., Ostberg, C. O., Chase, D. A., & Duda, J. J.
- Affiliations
- Cramer Fish Sciences (United States) (US)
- Western Fisheries Research Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Keel, Dylan J.
- Chase, Daniel A.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2025-07-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 20679-20679
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12217707
- OpenAlex
- W4411873054
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 98
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3
- FWCI
- 1.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Resource Environmental Solutions LLC.
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
- Keywords
- environmental specimen bank, dam removal, river restoration, freshwater biodiversity, eDNA metabarcoding, reservoirs, biodiversity monitoring
- MeSH terms
- DNA, Environmental, Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Fishes, Ecosystem, Biological Specimen Banks, Biodiversity, Rivers, DNA Barcoding, Taxonomic
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