Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

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 access
Keck, François, Blackman, Rosetta C., Bossart, Raphael, Brantschen, Jeanine, Couton, Marjorie, Hürlemann, Samuel, Kirschner, Dominik, Locher, Nadine, Zhang, Heng, Altermatt, Florian·2022·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/mec.16364

Cites

139 of 139 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 139 references

Cited by

See all 259

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.