The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing vertebrate biodiversity in a kelp forest ecosystem using environmental DNA
Open accessAbstract
Preserving biodiversity is a global challenge requiring data on species’ distribution and abundance over large geographic and temporal scales. However, traditional methods to survey mobile species’ distribution and abundance in marine environments are often inefficient, environmentally destructive, or resource‐intensive. Metabarcoding of environmental DNA (eDNA) offers a new means to assess biodiversity and on much larger scales, but adoption of this approach for surveying whole animal communities in large, dynamic aquatic systems has been slowed by significant unknowns surrounding error rates of detection and relevant spatial resolution of eDNA surveys. Here, we report the results of a 2.5 km eDNA transect surveying the vertebrate fauna present along a gradation of diverse marine habitats associated with a kelp forest ecosystem. Using PCR primers that target the mitochondrial 12S rRNA gene of marine fishes and mammals, we generated eDNA sequence data and compared it to simultaneous visual dive surveys. We find spatial concordance between individual species’ eDNA and visual survey trends, and that eDNA is able to distinguish vertebrate community assemblages from habitats separated by as little as ~60 m. eDNA reliably detected vertebrates with low false‐negative error rates (1/12 taxa) when compared to the surveys, and revealed cryptic species known to occupy the habitats but overlooked by visual methods. This study also presents an explicit accounting of false negatives and positives in metabarcoding data, which illustrate the influence of gene marker selection, replication, contamination, biases impacting eDNA count data and ecology of target species on eDNA detection rates in an open ecosystem.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads
Martin, M. (2011) · EMBnet.journal · doi:10.14806/ej.17.1.200 · Cited by 33,889
BLAST+: architecture and applications
Camacho, C., Coulouris, G., Avagyan, V., Ma, N., Papadopoulos, J., Bealer, K., & Madden, T. L. (2009) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-421 · Cited by 22,074
Environmental genome shotgun sequencing of the sargasso sea
Venter, J. C., Remington, K., Heidelberg, J. F., Halpern, A. L., Rusch, D., Eisen, J. A., Wu, D., Paulsen, I., Nelson, K. E., Nelson, W., et al. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1093857 · Cited by 4,376
Piñol, J., Mir, G., Gomez‐Polo, P., & Agustí, N. (2015) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12355 · Cited by 423
Stadhouders, R., Pas, S. D., Anber, J., Voermans, J., Mes, T. H. M., & Schutten, M. (2010) · The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.2353/jmoldx.2010.090035 · Cited by 399
Cited by
Ames, C. L., Ohdera, A. H., Colston, S. M., Collins, A. G., Fitt, W. K., Morandini, A. C., Erickson, J. S., & Vora, G. J. (2021) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.640527 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Port, J. A., O'Donnell, J. L., Romero‐Maraccini, O. C., Leary, P. R., Litvin, S. Y., Nickols, K. J., Yamahara, K. M., & Kelly, R. P.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-12-24
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 527-541
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2248984422
- Cited by
- 441
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 20.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.