The DOI matches its Crossref record; 139 of the 139 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta‐analysis shows both congruence and complementarity of DNA and eDNA metabarcoding to traditional methods for biological community assessment
Open accessAbstract
DNA metabarcoding is increasingly used for the assessment of aquatic communities, and numerous studies have investigated the consistency of this technique with traditional morpho‐taxonomic approaches. These individual studies have used DNA metabarcoding to assess diversity and community structure of aquatic organisms both in marine and freshwater systems globally over the last decade. However, a systematic analysis of the comparability and effectiveness of DNA‐based community assessment across all of these studies has hitherto been lacking. Here, we performed the first meta‐analysis of available studies comparing traditional methods and DNA metabarcoding to measure and assess biological diversity of key aquatic groups, including plankton, microphytobentos, macroinvertebrates, and fish. Across 215 data sets, we found that DNA metabarcoding provides richness estimates that are globally consistent to those obtained using traditional methods, both at local and regional scale. DNA metabarcoding also generates species inventories that are highly congruent with traditional methods for fish. Contrastingly, species inventories of plankton, microphytobenthos and macroinvertebrates obtained by DNA metabarcoding showed pronounced differences to traditional methods, missing some taxa but at the same time detecting otherwise overseen diversity. The method is generally sufficiently advanced to study the composition of fish communities and replace more invasive traditional methods. For smaller organisms, like macroinvertebrates, plankton and microphytobenthos, DNA metabarcoding may continue to give complementary rather than identical estimates compared to traditional approaches. Systematic and comparable data collection will increase the understanding of different aspects of this complementarity, and increase the effectiveness of the method and adequate interpretation of the results.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Brooks, M., Kristensen, K., Benthem, K., Magnusson, A., Berg, C., Nielsen, A., Skaug, H., Mächler, M., & Bolker, B. (2017) · The R Journal · doi:10.32614/rj-2017-066 · Cited by 12,915
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704 · cited 1×
“The log-ratio is a widely used effect size measure in ecological meta-analyses to summarize the magnitude and direction of multiple research outcomes (Hedges et al., 1999).”
Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions
Ferrari, S., & Cribari-Neto, F. (2004) · Journal of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1080/0266476042000214501 · Cited by 3,055
Guillou, L., Bachar, D., Audic, S., Bass, D., Berney, C., Bittner, L., Boutte, C., Burgaud, G., de Vargas, C., Decelle, J., et al. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gks1160 · Cited by 2,362
Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities
Deiner, K., Bik, H. M., Mächler, E., Seymour, M., Lacoursière‐Roussel, A., Altermatt, F., Creer, S., Bista, I., Lodge, D. M., de Vere, N., et al. (2017) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14350 · Cited by 1,918
Self-citationEffects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems
Cardinale, B. J., Srivastava, D. S., Emmett Duffy, J., Wright, J. P., Downing, A. L., Sankaran, M., & Jouseau, C. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05202 · Cited by 1,871
A better lemon squeezer? maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables.
Smithson, M., & Verkuilen, J. (2006) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.1.54 · Cited by 1,788
Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples
Ficetola, G. F., Miaud, C., Pompanon, F., & Taberlet, P. (2008) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2008.0118 · Cited by 1,707
Borja, A., Franco, J., & Pérez, V (2000) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/s0025-326x(00)00061-8 · Cited by 1,670
Cited by
Skelton, J., Cauvin, A., & Hunter, M. E. (2023) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.355 · Cited by 99
Tournayre, O., Tian, H., Lougheed, D. R., Windle, M. J. S., Lambert, S., Carter, J., Sun, Z., Ridal, J., Wang, Y., Cumming, B. F., et al. (2024) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.590 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Keck, F., Blackman, R. C., Bossart, R., Brantschen, J., Couton, M., Hürlemann, S., Kirschner, D., Locher, N., Zhang, H., & Altermatt, F.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-02-02
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1820-1835
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W4206968775
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 139
- FWCI
- 25.03
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta‐analysis shows both congruence and complementarity of DNA and eDNA metabarcoding to traditional methods for biological community assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/mec.16364
- The paper
- Keck, F., Blackman, R. C., Bossart, R., Brantschen, J., Couton, M., Hürlemann, S., Kirschner, D., Locher, N., Zhang, H., & Altermatt, F. (2022). Meta‐analysis shows both congruence and complementarity of DNA and eDNA metabarcoding to traditional methods for biological community assessment. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16364
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.