CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 153Environmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is DNA Barcoding Actually Cheaper and Faster than Traditional Morphological Methods: Results from a Survey of Freshwater Bioassessment Efforts in the United States?

Open access
Stein, Eric D., Martinez, Maria C., Stiles, Sara, Miller, Peter E., Zakharov, Evgeny V.·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0095525PMC PMC3995707
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Taxonomic identification accounts for a substantial portion of cost associated with bioassessment programs across the United States. New analytical approaches, such as DNA barcoding have been promoted as a way to reduce monitoring costs and improve efficiency, yet this assumption has not been thoroughly evaluated. We address this question by comparing costs for traditional morphology-based bioassessment, the standard Sanger sequencing-based DNA barcoding approach, and emerging next-generation (NGS) molecular methods. Market demand for molecular approaches is also assessed through a survey of the level of freshwater bioassessment effort in the United States across multiple habitat types (lakes, streams, wetlands) and indicators (benthic invertebrates, fish, algae). All state and regional level programs administered by public agencies and reported via agency web sites were included in the survey. Costs were based on surveys of labs and programs willing to provide such information. More than 19,500 sites are sampled annually across the United States, with the majority of effort occurring in streams. Benthic invertebrates are the most commonly used indicator, but algae and fish comprise between 35% and 21% of total sampling effort, respectively. We estimate that between $104 and $193 million is spent annually on routine freshwater bioassessment in the United States. Approximately 30% of the bioassessment costs are comprised of the cost to conduct traditional morphology-based taxonomy. Current barcoding costs using Sanger sequencing are between 1.7 and 3.4 times as expensive as traditional taxonomic approaches, excluding the cost of field sampling (which is common to both approaches). However, the cost of NGS methods are comparable (or slightly less expensive) than traditional methods depending on the indicator. The promise of barcoding as a cheaper alternative to current practices is not yet realized, although molecular methods may provide other benefits, such as a faster sample processing and increased taxonomic resolution.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0095525

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Annual sampling locations per indicator.
Figure 1 Annual sampling locations per indicator.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Distribution of annual intensity of sampling per state for all waterbody types combined.
Figure 2 Distribution of annual intensity of sampling per state for all waterbody types combined.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Annual number of organisms sampled (statewide and regional programs) per water body type and indicator.
Figure 3 Annual number of organisms sampled (statewide and regional programs) per water body type and indicator.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Stein, E. D., Martinez, M. C., Stiles, S., Miller, P. E., & Zakharov, E. V.
Affiliations
  • Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (US)
  • University of Guelph (CA)
Corresponding author
Stein, Eric D.
ORCID
Stein, Eric D.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-04-22
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
e95525
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0095525
PMC
PMC3995707
OpenAlex
W2098534604
Cited by
152
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Keywords
DNA barcoding, cost comparison, morphological taxonomy, Sanger sequencing, next-generation sequencing, benthic invertebrates, fish, algae, water quality monitoring, taxonomic identification, streams, lakes, wetlands, United States
MeSH terms
Animals, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Environmental Monitoring, Fresh Water, United States, Biodiversity, 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