Cited by 765Environmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 35 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol

Open access

Elbrecht, Vasco, Leese, Florian·2015·PLOS ONE

DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0130324PMC PMC4496048

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

Metabarcoding is an emerging genetic tool to rapidly assess biodiversity in ecosystems. It involves high-throughput sequencing of a standard gene from an environmental sample and comparison to a reference database. However, no consensus has emerged regarding laboratory pipelines to screen species diversity and infer species abundances from environmental samples. In particular, the effect of primer bias and the detection limit for specimens with a low biomass has not been systematically examined, when processing samples in bulk. We developed and tested a DNA metabarcoding protocol that utilises the standard cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) barcoding fragment to detect freshwater macroinvertebrate taxa. DNA was extracted in bulk, amplified in a single PCR step, and purified, and the libraries were directly sequenced in two independent MiSeq runs (300-bp paired-end reads). Specifically, we assessed the influence of specimen biomass on sequence read abundance by sequencing 31 specimens of a stonefly species with known haplotypes spanning three orders of magnitude in biomass (experiment I). Then, we tested the recovery of 52 different freshwater invertebrate taxa of similar biomass using the same standard barcoding primers (experiment II). Each experiment was replicated ten times to maximise statistical power. The results of both experiments were consistent across replicates. We found a distinct positive correlation between species biomass and resulting numbers of MiSeq reads. Furthermore, we reliably recovered 83% of the 52 taxa used to test primer bias. However, sequence abundance varied by four orders of magnitudes between taxa despite the use of similar amounts of biomass. Our metabarcoding approach yielded reliable results for high-throughput assessments. However, the results indicated that primer efficiency is highly species-specific, which would prevent straightforward assessments of species abundance and biomass in a sample. Thus, PCR-based metabarcoding assessments of biodiversity should rely on presence-absence metrics.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study developed and tested a replicated COI metabarcoding protocol for freshwater macroinvertebrates, using bulk DNA extraction and Illumina MiSeq sequencing. It found a strong biomass–read relationship within a single species, but strong species-specific primer bias across taxa, concluding that PCR-based metabarcoding cannot reliably quantify species abundance or biomass and should be used for presence–absence assessments.

Key findings

In experiment I, all 31 *Dinocras cephalotes* specimens were recovered across ten replicates, including the smallest specimen at 0.023% (0.145 mg) of total biomass; specimen biomass and sequence abundance showed a highly significant positive linear correlation in all ten replicates (p<0.001, R² = 0.65).
In experiment II, 83% (43/52) of taxa were reliably recovered; 34 taxa were recovered in all ten replicates. Recovery by group was Ephemeroptera 7/8 (88%), Plecoptera 4/4 (100%), Trichoptera 13/15 (86%), Diptera 7/8 (88%), and Others 12/17 (71%).
Despite similar biomass, sequence abundance varied by four orders of magnitude among taxa, and there was no correlation between taxon biomass and number of recovered sequences. Primer efficiency was highly species-specific, preventing straightforward abundance or biomass inference.
LCO and HCO sequencing direction had small effects on final sequence abundance (2.7% and 4.4% differences in experiments I and II), though LCO was 34% more frequent in experiment I (p = 0.006) and no primer bias was detected in experiment II (p = 0.41).

Methods

Two controlled experiments with ten replicates each were sequenced on two independent MiSeq runs using 300-bp paired-end reads; experiment I used 31 *D. cephalotes* stonefly specimens spanning three orders of magnitude in biomass, and experiment II used 52 freshwater invertebrate taxa with similar tissue biomass.
DNA was extracted in bulk, amplified in a single PCR step with tagged fusion primers based on standard COI LCO1490/HCO2198, purified, and directly sequenced; experiment I used 1.4% and 20% tissue aliquots, while experiment II pooled roughly equal tissue amounts per taxon.
Bioinformatic analysis used demultiplexing, cutadapt primer removal, read concatenation, blastn against reference haplotypes for experiment I, and UPARSE OTU clustering at 97% identity with BOLD identification for experiment II; sequence counts were normalised to total sequence abundance and tissue weight.

Limitations

The paper states that PCR-based metabarcoding cannot accurately estimate species biomass or even abundance in diverse environmental samples because primer efficiency is highly species-specific; it recommends presence–absence metrics and notes that PCR-free approaches are needed for biomass estimates.
The paper states that only 83% of taxa were recovered with one universal COI primer pair, that barcode reference databases remain incomplete, that DNA-based assessments cannot assign biological traits, and that PCR replication effects were not evaluated due to a small number of replicates.
Evident from the text: the experiments are limited to freshwater macroinvertebrates from western Germany and a specific MiSeq/COI Folmer protocol; some morphotaxa were identified only to family or order and contained multiple MOTUs, so species-level amplification behaviour may be more variable than the morphotaxon-level summaries suggest.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0130324

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 35 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 65 claims

Probably not a substantial claim. 23
It may state two separate claims as one. 23

In the paper
“Furthermore, we used a universal COI primer with a broad target range [41], and only 17% of taxa went undetected.”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Discussion > Implications for large-scale monitoring and future challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] O Folmer, 1994, DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates, Mol Marine Biol Biotechnol
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“different species within a genus or subfamily can have different ecological preferences and stress tolerances and belong to different functional feeding groups [11,12] see [13] for review.”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Merritt RW, Berg MB, Cummins KW. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. 2009.
- Not checked yetcites [12] SU Pauls, 2008, Grazers, shredders and filtering carnivores—The evolution of feeding ecology in Drusinae (Trichoptera: Limnephilidae): Insights from a molecular phylogeny, Mol Phylogenet Evol source
- Not checked yetcites [13] FC Jones, 2008, Taxonomic sufficiency: The influence of taxonomic resolution on freshwater bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebrates, Environ Rev source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“many benthic invertebrate larvae are difficult to identify at the species level, and thus the most practical taxonomic level for the identification of these organisms is often only the genus or family [10].”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] P Haase, 2010, First audit of macroinvertebrate samples from an EU Water Framework Directive monitoring program: human error greatly lowers precision of assessment results, J North Am Benthol Soc source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“DNA barcoding allows for standardized and accurate species identification [15–18].”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] PDN Hebert, 2003, Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species, Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci source
- Not checked yetcites [16] X Zhou, 2009, Towards a comprehensive barcode library for arctic life—Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera of Churchill, Manitoba, Canada, Front Zool source
- Not checked yetcites [17] X Zhou, 2010, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera fauna of Churchill (Manitoba, Canada): insights into biodiversity patterns from DNA barcoding, J North Am Benthol Soc source
- Not checked yetcites [18] BW Sweeney, 2011, Can DNA barcodes of stream macroinvertebrates improve descriptions of community structure and water quality?, J North Am Benthol Soc source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“frequent identification errors occur and many specimens are not detected in samples [10]”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] P Haase, 2010, First audit of macroinvertebrate samples from an EU Water Framework Directive monitoring program: human error greatly lowers precision of assessment results, J North Am Benthol Soc source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All analyses were performed with ten replicates to improve statistical robustness.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
  “Each experiment was replicated ten times to maximise statistical power.”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Introduction
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Stein and co-authors showed that ten of 16 assessment metrics had higher statistical power using DNA barcoding than morphological assessment [14].”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] ED Stein, 2014, Is DNA Barcoding Actually Cheaper and Faster than Traditional Morphological Methods: Results from a Survey of Freshwater Bioassessment Efforts in the United States?, PLoS ONE source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For animals, a 658-bp standardized fragment of the mitochondrial gene COI (cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1) is typically used [19].”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] PDN Hebert, 2003, Biological identifications through DNA barcodes, Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci source
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several studies show that DNA-based assessments are superior to morphological assessments in freshwater ecosystems (e.g., [14,25,33])”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] ED Stein, 2014, Is DNA Barcoding Actually Cheaper and Faster than Traditional Morphological Methods: Results from a Survey of Freshwater Bioassessment Efforts in the United States?, PLoS ONE source
- Not checked yetcites [25] JK Jackson, 2014, Cryptic biodiversity in streams: a comparison of macroinvertebrate communities based on morphological and DNA barcode identifications, Freshw Sci source
- Not checked yetcites [33] Zimmermann J, Glöckner G, Jahn R, Enke N, Gemeinholzer B. Metabarcoding vs. morphological identification to assess diatom diversity in environmental studies. Mol Ecol Resour. 2014; 1–17. <comment>doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12336</comment> source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The efforts of large national and international barcoding consortia (BOLD, iBOL, and GBOL) have contributed to a substantial increase in both the size and quality of reference databases [56]”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Discussion > Implications for large-scale monitoring and future challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [56] P Taberlet, 2012, Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding, Mol Ecol source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“we are confident that metabarcoding will widely replace present biomonitoring methods over time because 1) it has a higher taxonomic resolution [14], 2) it is cost efficient and fast and, most importantly, 3) it reduces human bias enabling comparisons among studies [57].”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Discussion > Implications for large-scale monitoring and future challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] ED Stein, 2014, Is DNA Barcoding Actually Cheaper and Faster than Traditional Morphological Methods: Results from a Survey of Freshwater Bioassessment Efforts in the United States?, PLoS ONE source
- Not checked yetcites [57] Y Ji, 2013, Reliable, verifiable and efficient monitoring of biodiversity via metabarcoding, Ecol Lett source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Piñol et al. [39] proposed a relationship between biomass and sequence reads, but did not systematically examine this hypothesis.”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Discussion > Experiment I: Relationship between specimen biomass and sequence abundance
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] Piñol J, Mir G, Gomez-Polo P, Agustí N. Universal and blocking primer mismatches limit the use of high-throughput DNA sequencing for the quantitative metabarcoding of arthropods. Mol Ecol Resour. 2014; 1–12. <comment>doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12355</comment> source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, while this approach could have comparable taxonomic resolution as the COI barcode, it is currently limited by the lack of reference databases [55].”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Discussion > Implications for large-scale monitoring and future challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [55] LJ Clarke, 2014, Environmental metabarcodes for insects: in silicoPCR reveals potential for taxonomic bias, Mol Ecol Resour source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A combination of both data types, i.e., DNA species barcodes and ecological traits, will maximise the power of metabarcoding for the reliable assessment of ecosystem responses under stress and for biomonitoring.”
§ Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol > Discussion > Implications for large-scale monitoring and future challenges
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: DNA-based assessments cannot assign biological traits to species.

38 of 38

The paper relies on this without support.
Precise estimates of biomass with respect to specimen recovery and primer bias have not been performed.
“Precise estimates of biomass with respect to specimen recovery and primer bias have not been performed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
COI amplicons are typically similar in base composition.
“COI amplicons are typically similar in base composition; therefore, three strategies were used to increase sequence diversity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Sanger sequencing requires that each specimen is processed individually in the laboratory, which is costly and extremely time-consuming for routine community assessments involving hundreds or thousands of specimens per sample.
“However, Sanger sequencing requires that each specimen is processed individually in the laboratory, which is costly and extremely time-consuming for routine community assessments involving hundreds or thousands of specimens per sample.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Benthic indicator organisms vary in biomass, and this variation depends on taxonomic group and life stage.
“Benthic indicator organisms vary in biomass, and this variation depends on taxonomic group and life stage.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Morphotaxa could often only be identified at family or order level, and several species per morphotaxon may occur in the sampled aquatic habitats even at the same habitat patch.
“This was expected, as morphotaxa could often only be identified at family or order level, and several species per morphotaxon may occur in the sampled aquatic habitats even at the same habitat patch.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Stochastic effects increase with reduced specimen biomass.
“This result is expected because stochastic effects increase with reduced specimen biomass.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Currently, the monitoring of freshwater ecosystems is based on abundance metrics, which cannot be generated using the metabarcoding solutions currently available.
“Currently, the monitoring of freshwater ecosystems is based on abundance metrics, which cannot be generated using the metabarcoding solutions currently available.”
The paper relies on this without support.
All assessment protocols rely on reference catalogues against which inventory data of a species from an ecosystem are compared.
“All assessment protocols rely on reference catalogues against which inventory data of a species from an ecosystem are compared.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Changes in species traits in a community (e.g. functional feeding groups, tolerance against pollution) are used as indicator values to evaluate the biological significance of inferred community changes.
“In particular, changes in species traits in a community (e.g. functional feeding groups, tolerance against pollution) are used as indicator values to evaluate the biological significance of inferred community changes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
DNA-based assessments cannot assign biological traits to species.
“However, DNA-based assessments cannot assign biological traits to species.”

10 of 10

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.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

All 52 taxa assigned OTUs despite taxa going undetected
Minor
The paper says OTUs were reliably assigned to all 52 taxa, but later says 17% of the taxa went undetected. Undetected taxa cannot also have been assigned OTUs.

1 of 1

R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data
Caporaso, J. G., Kuczynski, J., Stombaugh, J., Bittinger, K., Bushman, F. D., Costello, E. K., Fierer, N., Peña, A. G., Goodrich, J. K., Gordon, J. I., et al. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.303 · Cited by 34,887
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
Introducing mothur: Open-Source, Platform-Independent, Community-Supported Software for Describing and Comparing Microbial Communities
Schloss, P. D., Westcott, S. L., Ryabin, T., Hall, J. R., Hartmann, M., Hollister, E. B., Lesniewski, R. A., Oakley, B. B., Parks, D. H., Robinson, C. J., et al. (2009) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.01541-09 · Cited by 21,481
UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads
Edgar, R. C. (2013) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2604 · Cited by 16,770
DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates.
Folmer, O., Black, M., Hoeh, W., Lutz, R., & Vrijenhoek, R. (1994) · PubMed · doi:10.5281/zenodo.15145663 · Cited by 15,546
Biological identifications through DNA barcodes
Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L., & deWaard, J. R. (2003) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2218 · Cited by 13,376
A safe operating space for humanity
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., et al. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/461472a · Cited by 13,333
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
Assessment, M. E. (2005) · Island Press · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18167309 · Cited by 10,665

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 60 references

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 765

Assessing patterns of metazoans in the global ocean using environmental DNA
Geraldi, N. R., Acinas, S. G., Alam, I. S., Gasol, J. M., Fernández-de-Puelles, M. L., Giner, C. R., Hernández‐León, S., Logares, R., Massana, R., Sánchez, P., et al. (2024) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.240724 · Cited by 5
“Although it is generally accepted that metabarcoding is appropriate for assessing taxonomic richness, biases associated with PCR make metabarcoding’s relationship with abundance less direct and context dependent [27,28].”
Background
Exploiting taxonomic information from metagenomes to infer bacterial bioindicators and environmental quality at salmon aquaculture installations
Rubel, V., Filker, S., Lanzén, A., Abad‐Recio, I. L., & Stoeck, T. (2025) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.118173 · Cited by 5
Use of massive DNA barcoding to monitor biodiversity: A test on forest soil macrofauna
Jabot, F., Auger, G., Bonnal, P., Pizaine, M., Roncoroni, M., Revaillot, S., & Pottier, J. (2025) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123004 · Cited by 5
Influence of short-term water sample storage on environmental RNA metabarcoding-based biodiversity assessment
Wang, F., Xiong, W., Huang, X., & Zhan, A. (2025) · Journal of Environmental Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jes.2025.11.019 · Cited by 6
A metabarcoding framework for wild bee assessment in Luxembourg
Herrera‐Mesías, F., Jarboui, I. K. E., & Weigand, A. M. (2022) · Journal of Hymenoptera Research · doi:10.3897/jhr.94.84617 · Cited by 5
eDNA metabarcoding as a means to track distributions of different fish species in a protected area
Tabatabaei, S. N., Segherloo, I. H., Abdoli, A., Afzali, S. F., Normandeau, É., Laporte, M., Hallerman, E. M., & Bernatchez, L. (2024) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.505 · Cited by 5
Optimisation of an Environmental DNA‐Based Approach for Assessing Freshwater Fish Biodiversity in Southernmost South America
Veyñ, M., Chalde, T., & Nardi, C. F. (2025) · Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · doi:10.1002/aqc.70112 · Cited by 5
Optimizing Environmental DNA Metabarcoding of Archived Suspended Particulate Matter for River Biodiversity Monitoring
Schütz, R., Fukaya, K., Beermann, A. J., Díaz, C., Lenz, A., Macher, T., Koschorreck, J., & Leese, F. (2025) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.70130 · Cited by 5
Self-citation
Metabarcoding analysis of meiobenthic biodiversity along the Gulf of Mexico continental shelf
Brannock, P. M., Demopoulos, A. W. J., Landers, S. C., Waits, D. S., & Halanych, K. M. (2023) · Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science · doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2023.108303 · Cited by 5
Metabarcoding fecal samples to investigate spatiotemporal variation in the diet of the endangered Westland Petrel ( Procellaria westlandica )
Querejeta, M., Lefort, M.-C., Bretagnolle, V., & Boyer, S. (2023) · Avian Conservation and Ecology · doi:10.5751/ace-02410-180117 · Cited by 5
“It could be thought that the high prevalence of arthropods is because our primer has a higher affinity for arthropods or even for amphipods (Elbrecht and Leese 2015), making Talitroidea overrepresented in the characterization of the Westland Petrel’s diet.”
Background
Dissecting biodiversity: assessing the taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic structure of an insect metacommunity in a river network using morphological and metabarcoding data
Laini, A., Stubbington, R., Beermann, A. J., Burgazzi, G., Datry, T., Viaroli, P., Wilkes, M., Zizka, V. M. A., Saccò, M., & Leese, F. (2023) · The European Zoological Journal · doi:10.1080/24750263.2023.2197924 · Cited by 5
“Metabarcoding analysis was performed following Elbrecht and Leese (2015) but using a two-step PCR protocol as described in Zizka et al. (2019).”
Self-citation
Morpho‐ecospaces, or how to measure biodiversity in a different way
Haug, J. T., BARANOV, V. A., Braig, F., & Haug, C. (2023) · Acta Zoologica · doi:10.1111/azo.12486 · Cited by 5
Dietary metabarcoding of keystone sardine species reveals the importance of their ichthyoplankton prey in food webs of the Southern Brazilian Bight fisheries
de Queiroz, A. K. O., Gasalla, M. A., Laux, M., Oliveira, R. R. M., Rosa, F. D. A. S., Schrøder‐Nielsen, A., Postuma, F. A., Sales, J. B. D. L., de Boer, H., Mauvisseau, Q., et al. (2024) · Fisheries Oceanography · doi:10.1111/fog.12668 · Cited by 5
Estimating relative per capita predation rates from molecular gut content analysis
Andow, D. A., & Paula, D. P. (2024) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2024.105499 · Cited by 5
Brute force prey metabarcoding to explore the diets of small invertebrates
Flo, S., Vader, A., & Præbel, K. (2024) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.11369 · Cited by 5
“Like universal PCR primers typically used in metabarcoding, blocking primers can introduce bias during amplification (Elbrecht & Leese, 2015; Leray & Knowlton, 2017 ; Piñol et al., 2015).”
Background
DNA metabarcoding data analysis
Taberlet, P., Bonin, A., Zinger, L., & Coissac, É. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198767220.003.0008 · Cited by 6
Using full-length metabarcoding and DNA barcoding to infer community assembly for speciose taxonomic groups: a case study
Hao, M., Jin, Q., Meng, G., Yang, C., Yang, S., Shi, Z., Tang, M., Liu, S., Li, Y., Li, J., et al. (2020) · Evolutionary Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10682-020-10072-y · Cited by 5
“2013) and even relative abundance (Diaz-Real 2015; Elbrecht and Leese 2015; Elbrecht et al. 2017; Braukmann et al. 2019; Garrido-Sanz 2020) for insect communities, through the integration of high-throughput sequencing and fractions of the standard DNA barcodes.”
Background
Metabarcoding of Fish Larvae in the Merbok River Reveals Species Diversity and Distribution Along its Mangrove Environment.
Alshari, N. F. M. A. H., Ahmad, S. Z., Azlan, A., Lee, Y., Azzam, G., & Nor, S. A. M. (2021) · PubMed Central · doi:10.6620/zs.2021.60-76 · Cited by 5
Optimizing a metabarcoding primer portfolio for species-level detection of taxa in complex mixtures of diverse fishesPreprint
Baetscher, D. S., Locatelli, N., Won, E., Fitzgerald, T. P., McIntyre, P. B., & Therkildsen, N. O. (2021) · doi:10.22541/au.163861686.62434613/v1 · Cited by 5
Local-scale dispersal constraints promote spatial structure and arthropod diversity within a tropical sky-islandPreprint
Gálvez‐Reyes, N., Arribas, P., Andújar, C., Emerson, B. C., Piñero, D., & Mastretta‐Yanes, A. (2020) · doi:10.22541/au.160193334.45224582/v1 · Cited by 5
Metabarcoding for Biodiversity Estimation
Krehenwinkel, H., Hans, J., Junk, I., Mahla, L., Melcher, A. C., Stothut, M., & Kennedy, S. R. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-822562-2.00380-7 · Cited by 5
Size-dependent impacts from polystyrene micro- and nanoplastics on freshwater invertebrates: A mesocosm study combining environmental DNA metabarcoding and morphological identification
van der Plas, M., Nederstigt, T. A. P., Trimbos, K. B., & Vijver, M. G. (2025) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.140304 · Cited by 4
Microplastics as genetic vectors for environmental DNA: A review on adsorption mechanisms, plastisphere genetics, and ecotoxicological implications
Hassan, S., Yaseen, A., Wani, H. K., Sabreena, Zaman, M., Bali, B. S., Ganai, B. A., Ganiee, S. A., & Shah, A. J. (2026) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2026.142078 · Cited by 4
Unravelling bird nest arthropod community structure using metabarcoding
Levesque‐Beaudin, V., Steinke, D., Boecker, M., & Thalinger, B. (2023) · Metabarcoding and Metagenomics · doi:10.3897/mbmg.7.103279 · Cited by 4
Sediment Core DNA ‐Metabarcoding and Chitinous Remain Identification: Integrating Complementary Methods to Characterise Chironomidae Biodiversity in Lake Sediment Archives
Blattner, L. A., Lapellegerie, P., Mustaphi, C. J. C., & Heiri, O. (2024) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.14035 · Cited by 4
Detection of Freshwater Jellyfish (Craspedacusta sowerbii Lankester, 1880) by Biofilm eDNA in Miho River Watershed
Kim, K., Cho, H., Kim, J.-H., Yang, Y.-M., Ju, H., & Jeong, H. (2023) · Korean Journal of Ecology and Environment · doi:10.11614/ksl.2023.56.3.250 · Cited by 4
Changes in the Microbial Community Associated with the Large Benthic Foraminifera Cycloclypeus Carpenteri, Along a Depth Gradient
Versteegen, E., Macher, J., Rowley, S. J., & Renema, W. (2024) · The Journal of Foraminiferal Research · doi:10.2113/gsjfr.54.1.65 · Cited by 4
Millennial-scale fingerprint of macroalgae in Arctic marine sediments
Ørberg, S. B., Seidenkrantz, M., Geraldi, N. R., Andresen, C. S., Kjeldsen, K. U., Duarte, C. M., & Krause‐Jensen, D. (2025) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.180191 · Cited by 4
Vocal individuality of large-tailed nightjar (Caprimulgus macrurus) in Peninsular Malaysia
Chang, P. K., Puan, C. L., Yee, S. A., & Jalila, A. (2017) · Bioacoustics · doi:10.1080/09524622.2017.1292408 · Cited by 4
“This would offer an alternative to visual encounters or DNA barcoding (Elbrecht & Leese 2015), all of which remain problematic in evaluating animal abundance.”
Background
Potenzial genetischer Methoden für das Biomonitoring der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie
Leese, F., Hering, D., & Wägele, J. W. (2017) · WASSERWIRTSCHAFT · doi:10.1007/s35147-017-0103-7 · Cited by 3
“tiven Häugkeiten der in der Probe enthaltenen Organismen nicht oder nur unpräzise bestimmen [12].”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Rapid spread of a new alien and potentially invasive species, Clathrocaspia knipowitschii (Makarov, 1938) (Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae), in the Danube River
Szekeres, J., Beermann, A. J., Neubauer, T. A., Očadlík, M., Paunović, M., Raković, M., Csányi, B., Varga, A., Weigand, A. M., Wilke, T., et al. (2022) · Archives of Biological Sciences · doi:10.2298/abs220211006s · Cited by 4
Diet analysis
Taberlet, P., Bonin, A., Zinger, L., & Coissac, É. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198767220.003.0017 · Cited by 4
Prey selection by Chordeiles minor (Common Nighthawk) does not reflect differences in prey availability between breeding and nonbreeding grounds
Stein, E. D., Fariña, N., Villalba, O. E., Cockle, K. L., ZUBARÁN, G. E., Snider, A. M., Baldo, D., Cox, J. A., & Taylor, S. S. (2024) · The Auk · doi:10.1093/ornithology/ukae054 · Cited by 4
“…by primer biases and differences in prey digestion and sequencing depth (Alberdi et al. 2019, Jusino et al. 2019), some studies have validated the use of RRA to quantify invertebrate biomass when appropriate primers are used (Elbrecht and Leese 2015, Piñol et al. 2019, Verkuil et al. 2022).”
NextGen molecular barcoding of larval grouper diet in an extensive green-water pond system
Dennis, L. P., Anderson, K. C., Wylie, M. J., In, V. V., Nocillado, J. N., & Elizur, A. (2020) · Aquaculture · doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735971 · Cited by 4
From the bellies of babes: a larval-based approach to ant molecular gut content analysis
Wulff, J., Kjeldgaard, M., Eubanks, M., & Sword, G. (2021) · Insectes Sociaux · doi:10.1007/s00040-021-00822-8 · Cited by 4
Ancient DNA from speleothems: opportunity or challenge?
Marchesini, A., Festi, D., Girardi, M., Micheletti, D., Vernesi, C., & Luetscher, M. (2022) · Quaternary Research · doi:10.1017/qua.2022.46 · Cited by 4
“…choice of barcode markers (Hollingsworth et al., 2011); (2) preferential amplification of certain taxa over other ones, which leads to taxonomic bias (Elbrecht and Leese, 2015; Zinger et al., 2019); and (3) the extremely high sensitivity (due to PCR amplification) to contamination by DNA from…”
Background
Direct PCR meets high-throughput sequencing – metabarcoding of chironomid communities without DNA extraction
Röder, N., & Schwenk, K. (2023) · Metabarcoding and Metagenomics · doi:10.3897/mbmg.7.102455 · Cited by 4
Current methodologies in construction of plant-pollinator network with emphasize on the application of DNA metabarcoding approach
Namin, S. M., Son, M., & Jung, C. (2022) · Journal of Ecology and Environment · doi:10.5141/jee.22.003 · Cited by 4
Techniques for Sampling and Monitoring of Groundwater Fauna
Jäger, A., & Hahn, H. J. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-819166-8.00193-6 · Cited by 4
tombRaider – improved species and haplotype recovery from metabarcoding data through artefact and pseudogene exclusionPreprint
Jeunen, G., Fernandes, K., Dowle, E., Kroos, G. C., Mauvisseau, Q., Torma, M., Miller, A. K., Lamare, M. D., & Gemmell, N. J. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.08.23.609468 · Cited by 4
“…assigned perfectly to mock community species suggests that setting an abundance threshold might be problematic, as read abundance can be influenced by amplification bias due to variability within the primer-binding regions among insect species (Elbrecht and Leese 2015, 2017; Loos and Nijland 2021).”
Background
Gut content metabarcoding of six crustaceans provides detailed diet description and insights into their roles as predators and scavengers
Boët, P., Kopp, D., Méhault, S., Morfin, M., Bonin, A., & Lejeune, B. (2024) · Journal of Sea Research · doi:10.1016/j.seares.2024.102509 · Cited by 3
In Vitro Passive eDNA Sampling Provides a Cost‐Effective Alternative for Large Scale Sample Collection
Thompson, S., Jarman, S., Griffin, K. J., Heydenrych, M. J., Partridge, J. C., & Langlois, T. J. (2025) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.70101 · Cited by 3
Organic farming fosters arthropod diversity of specific insect guilds – evidence from metabarcoding
Habel, J. C., Ulrich, W., Segerer, A. H., Greifenstein, T., Knubben, J., Morinière, J., Günter, A., Schmitt, T., & Hausmann, A. (2025) · Conservation Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10592-025-01707-0 · Cited by 3
“Further, metabarcoding might not return reliable abundance estimates in cases where species strongly differ in body size (see Elbrecht and Leese 2015; Elbrecht et al. 2017a,b; Gloor et al. 2017).”
The evaluation of shotgun sequencing and rpoB metabarcoding for taxonomic profiling of bacterial communities
Durand, K., Ogier, J.-C., & Nam, K. (2025) · BMC Microbiology · doi:10.1186/s12866-025-04149-3 · Cited by 3
“However, potential variabilities of primer efficiency among species might lead to differential rates of DNA amplification [7, 8], possibly leading to biased quantitative estimation of the abundance [9, 10].”
Mock Plant Communities and a Large Mammal Case Study Reveal ITS2 Primer Bias Against Graminoids
Sadyrova, M., Martin, E., Ramsey, P. W., & Bullington, L. S. (2025) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.72102 · Cited by 3
“Furthermore, in working with environmental DNA (eDNA), especially in fecal metabarcoding, bias can be compounded by unavoidable natural processes, such as plant digestibility and DNA degradation (Ando et al. 2020; Elbrecht and Leese 2015; Krehenwinkel et al. 2017; Moinard et al. 2023).”
Technical challenges in the implementation of macroinvertebrate DNA metabarcoding in river biomonitoring: A case study from peninsular Spain—Advantages, limitations and roadmap
Fueyo, Á., Sánchez, O., Carleos, C. E., Granero‐Castro, J., & Borrell, Y. J. (2025) · Ecological Solutions and Evidence · doi:10.1002/2688-8319.70125 · Cited by 3
Evaluating the potential of DNA metabarcoding for ecological status assessment under the Water Framework Directive: A case study on benthic invertebrates from Western Carpathian streams
Šamulková, M., Beracko, P., Macko, P., Vargovčík, O., Tuhrinová, K., Čiamporová‐Zaťovičová, Z., Lešťáková, M., Elexová, E. M., & ČIAMPOR, F. J. (2025) · Metabarcoding and Metagenomics · doi:10.3897/mbmg.9.163640 · Cited by 3
Exposure to marine contaminant mixtures with different toxicity drivers reduces microzooplankton diversity
Jönander, C., Egardt, J., Töpel, M., Spilsbury, F., Carmona, E., Inostroza, P. A., Brack, W., & Dahllöf, I. (2025) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1093/femsec/fiaf102 · Cited by 3
“Other difficulties of quantifying species using metabarcoding include the divergence in priming sites across species that can affect primer binding and amplification of certain species during PCR (Stadhouders et al. 2010 , Elbrecht and Leese 2015 ).”
DNA metabarcoding‐based monitoring of insect biodiversity across agricultural ecosystems in China
Li, B., Wang, E., Ward, D. F., Xu, X., & Zhang, B. (2025) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.70345 · Cited by 3
“52,53 In this study, the BF3 + BR2 primer set was chosen, as it has been proven to be one of the most suitable for arthropod metabarcoding.”
Improving taxonomic resolution, biomass and abundance assessments of aquatic invertebrates by combining imaging and DNA megabarcoding
Rehsen, P. M., Honka, M. S., Impiö, M., Pimentel, I. M., Leese, F., & Beermann, A. J. (2026) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.20501 · Cited by 3
“…limitations of metabarcording ( e.g. , varying mitochondrial copy numbers, primer bias, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) stochasticity) this approach can neither deliver accurate abundance nor biomass information ( Polz & Cavanaugh, 1998 ; Piñol et al., 2015 ; Elbrecht & Leese, 2015 ).”
Self-citation
Determining the contribution of temperate seaweed farming to local sedimentary carbon stocks and climate change mitigation
Canvin, M. C., King, N. G., Moore, P. J., & Smale, D. A. (2026) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2026.119283 · Cited by 3
Improving Species Abundance Information From River eDNA Metabarcoding Data
Cereghetti, E., Altermatt, F., & Carraro, L. (2026) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.70250 · Cited by 3
Advances in soil arthropod identification: Integrating morphological, molecular, and AI-based approaches
Remelli, S., Gruss, I., & Menta, C. (2026) · European Journal of Soil Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejsobi.2026.103812 · Cited by 3
Comparative assessment of methods for monitoring urban phytoplankton biodiversity
Du, X., Zhan, A., He, Z., Cai, X., & Xiao, N. (2026) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2026.103714 · Cited by 3
A study of macroinvertebrate communities in Bolshiye Koty Bay of Lake Baikal using DNA metabarcoding
Сергеевна, К. Л., Peretolchina, T. E., Triboy, T. I., Nebesnykh, I. A., Tupikin, A. E., & Kabilov, M. R. (2023) · Vavilov Journal of Genetics and Breeding · doi:10.18699/vjgb-23-80 · Cited by 3
Environmental Matrices Need Consideration: Insights From Water and Biofilm Environmental DNA for Multi‐Taxonomic Biomonitoring
Gauvin, P., Domaizon, I., Bouchez, A., & Rimet, F. (2025) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.70079 · Cited by 4
Detecting fish community structure in open waters using environmental DNA: a case study from the central South China Sea
Chen, T., Zhang, S., Jiang, P., Chen, Z., Zhang, J., Xu, S., & Li, M. (2025) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2025.1544827 · Cited by 3
DNA Metabarcoding of Macroinvertebrates in the Biomonitoring System of Lake Baikal
Сергеевна, К. Л., Peretolchina, T. E., Triboy, T. I., Kovalenkova, M. V., Nebesnykh, I. A., Tupikin, A. E., & Kabilov, M. R. (2025) · Biology Bulletin · doi:10.1134/s1062359024611844 · Cited by 3
Mining exploration infrastructure affects biophysical habitat characteristics and ground-dwelling arthropod communities
Fernandes, K., Clark-Ioannou, S., Saunders, B. J., Majer, J. D., Bateman, P. W., Bunce, M., & Nevill, P. (2024) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-024-02865-2 · Cited by 3
“However, because reliable abundance is difficult to obtain from metabarcod - ing data (Elbrecht and Leese 2015), we were only able to make assessments based on the presence/absence of our arthropod zOTUs and were not able to examine abundance-related differences.”
Disturbance drives concordant functional biodiversity shifts across regions: new evidence from river eDNA
Fan, A., Ni, S., McCulloch, G. A., & Waters, J. M. (2024) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.07264 · Cited by 3
An annotated reference library for supporting DNA metabarcoding analysis of aquatic macroinvertebrates in French freshwater environments
Gauvin, P., Eme, D., Domaizon, I., & Rimet, F. (2025) · Metabarcoding and Metagenomics · doi:10.3897/mbmg.9.137772 · Cited by 4
Diet Analysis of Maumee River Fishes using Cytochrome C Oxidase (COI) DNA Metabarcoding ― Insights into a Critical Time of Year
Shortridge, M. G. (2016) · OhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network) · Cited by 3
DNA metabarcode choice and design
Taberlet, P., Bonin, A., Zinger, L., & Coissac, É. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198767220.003.0002 · Cited by 4
From DNA barcodes to ecology: Meta‐analysis of central European beetles reveal link with species ecology but also to data pattern and gaps
Ottati, S., Eberle, J., Rulik, B., Köhler, F., & AHRENS, D. C. (2022) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.9650 · Cited by 2
“Microbiologists have long used metabarcoding approaches, but use of this technique in the assessment of biodiversity in plant and animal communities is underexplored.”
DNA metabarcoding potentially reveals multi-assemblage eutrophication responses in an eastern North American riverPreprint
Craine, J. M., Cannon, M. V., Elmore, A. J., Guinn, S. M., & Fierer, N. (2017) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/186452 · Cited by 3
“Although the eDNA approach is not bias-free and care must be taken when 101 interpreting the results [17], the limitations of eDNA analysis are potentially offset by its 102 advantages and the fact that the resulting data are not subject to observer bias, yielding 103 datasets that are more reliable and consistent ove…”
Background
Metabarcoding faecal samples to investigate spatiotemporal variation in the diet of the endangered Westland petrel ( Procellaria westlandica )Preprint
Querejeta, M., Lefort, M.-C., Bretagnolle, V., & Boyer, S. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.10.30.360289 · Cited by 3
Quantitative prey species detection in predator guts across multiple trophic levels by DNA shotgun sequencingPreprint
Paula, D. P., Timbó, R. V., Togawa, R. C., Vogler, A. P., & Andow, D. A. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.04.01.438119 · Cited by 3
For all audiences: Incorporating immature stages into standardised inventories of mega-diverse groups has a major impact on our understanding of biodiversity patternsPreprint
Domènech, M., Wangensteen, O. S., Enguídanos, A., Malumbres‐Olarte, J., & Arnedo, M. A. (2021) · doi:10.22541/au.162936514.40253306/v1 · Cited by 3
Modelling eDNA transport in river networks reveals highly resolved spatio-temporal patterns of freshwater biodiversityPreprint
Carraro, L., Blackman, R. C., & Altermatt, F. (2022) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.01.25.475970 · Cited by 3
“Likely, this strong assumption is at least to some degree violated, as eDNA-based data are known to be highly affected by stochasticity [Deagle et al., 2014; Elbrecht and Leese, 2015; Kelly et al., 2019] or may not be totally replicable, especially with generic primers as used here.”
NeMO: a flexible R package for nested multi-species occupancy modeling and eDNA study optimizationPreprint
Macé, B., Manel, S., Valentini, A., Rocle, M., Roset, N., & Delrieu‐Trottin, E. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.05.23.655794 · Cited by 3
Dietary DNA Metabarcoding From Animal Fecal Samples
McConnell, R. D., Jarrett, C., Ferreira, D. F., Powell, L. L., Quiñones, A. L. S., Dominoni, D. M., & Welch, A. J. (2026) · Current Protocols · doi:10.1002/cpz1.70226 · Cited by 2
“Second, it is possible to append the entire Illumina adapter, including individual-specific index and/or barcode sequences, to the locus-specific primer (fusion primers, Elbrecht & Leese, 2015).”
DNA metabarcoding reveals the influence of land cover and farming on the dietary composition of a spider-specialist bat
Vallejo, N., Aldasoro, M., Olasagasti, L., Aihartza, J., & Garin, I. (2025) · Metabarcoding and Metagenomics · doi:10.3897/mbmg.9.144371 · Cited by 2
“As a result, many authors advise against using retrieved sequence count information, or relative read abun - dances, for the description of diet composition, in favour of presence/absence data (Elbrecht and Leese 2015).”
Evaluating eDNA Metabarcoding Techniques for Pollinator Community Assessment in a Field and Controlled Experiment
Coster, S. S., Pommier, M., & Ruppel, N. J. (2025) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.70162 · Cited by 2
Microbial Profiling of Buffalo Mozzarella Whey and Ricotta Exhausted Whey: Insights into Potential Probiotic Subdominant Strains
Bonfanti, A., Silvestri, R., Novellino, E., Tenore, G. C., Schiano, E., Iannuzzo, F., Reverberi, M., Faino, L., Beccaccioli, M., Sivori, F., et al. (2025) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms13081804 · Cited by 2
“…to the preferential amplification of certain taxa, causing an underrepresentation of those in low abundance); and (ii) bioinformatics pipelines that may struggle to differentiate between rare taxa and sequencing artifacts, leading to the potential misinterpretation of low-abundance reads [37–40].”
Primer Length in Reverse Transcription Determines Biodiversity Recovery and Reproducibility in eRNA Metabarcoding
Wang, F., Xiong, W., Huang, X., & Zhan, A. (2026) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.70267 · Cited by 2
Gut-content metabarcoding reveals opportunistic earthworm predation by the invasive terrestrial flatworm Obama nungara
Ventura, M., Noël, S., Fourcade, Y., Dupont, L., & Roy, V. (2026) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2026.110177 · Cited by 2
Comparative analysis of eDNA metabarcoding and eDNA metagenomics for fish biodiversity estimates using standard and novel filtration methods
van Berkel, D., Brevé, N. W. P., de Boer, M., Reynaud, E. G., & Nijland, R. (2026) · Metabarcoding and Metagenomics · doi:10.3897/mbmg.10.182039 · Cited by 2
Accuracy of occurrence and abundance estimates from insect metabarcoding
Iwaszkiewicz-Eggebrecht, E., Granqvist, E., Nowak, K. H., Valdivia, C., Buczek, M., Srivathsan, A., Hartop, E., Miraldo, A., Roslin, T. V., Tack, A. J. M., et al. (2026) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.70351 · Cited by 2
“Technical aspects—such as preservation of the sample, DNA extraction variability, primer bias, amplification efficiency and uneven reference library coverage—can distort diver - sity estimates (Alberdi et al., 2018 ; Elbrecht & Leese, 2015 ; Elbrecht et al., 2019 ).”
Analysis of bulk samples
Taberlet, P., Bonin, A., Zinger, L., & Coissac, É. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198767220.003.0018 · Cited by 2
Research Methods for Wild Pigs
Beasley, J. C., Lavelle, M. J., Keiter, D. A., Pepin, K. M., Piaggio, A. J., Kilgo, J. C., & VerCauteren, K. C. (2019) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/b22014-9 · Cited by 2
Universal primers screening and verification for environmental DNA metabarcoding of freshwater mussels in the Lake Poyang Basin
Chen, J., Chunhua, Z., Shan, O., Xiaochen, H., & Wu, X. (2021) · Journal of Lake Sciences · doi:10.18307/2021.0425 · Cited by 2
Reference databases
Taberlet, P., Bonin, A., Zinger, L., & Coissac, É. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198767220.003.0003 · Cited by 2
Assessing the Potential of Environmental DNA for Monitoring Nature‐Like Bypasses: Erroneous Surveillance Owing to DNA Flow‐Through
Tolonen, K., Lehtinen, A., Laamanen, T., & Koljonen, S. (2024) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.70004 · Cited by 2
Prey availability and diet composition of the Grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola) during migration on the South-Western Black Sea coast, Bulgaria
Vassileva, L. V., Lozanova, L., Marinov, M., Morinière, J., Neov, B., Nikolov, B. P., Simov, N., & Klayn, S. (2024) · Food Webs · doi:10.1016/j.fooweb.2024.e00373 · Cited by 2
Development of a qPCR-based method for the detection of arthropod pests in stored rice
del Arco, L., Riudavets, J., Castañé, C., & Agustí, N. (2024) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2024.111116 · Cited by 2
Metabarcoding identifies macroalgal composition as a driver of benthic invertebrate assemblages in restored habitats
Galobart, C., Zarcero, J., Antich, A., Turón, X., & Cebrián, E. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-93327-4 · Cited by 2
“We used the COI gene, which has been shown to identify about 60–80% of the taxa present in a sample (e.g freshwater macroinvertebrates 93 ; marine macroinvertebrates 94 ) and a generalist primer pair shown in silico to efficiently amplify most metazoan groups 52 .”
Quantitative climate reconstruction from sedimentary ancient DNA: framework, validation and application
Herzschuh, U., Böhmer, T., Jia, W., & Lisovski, S. (2026) · Climate of the past · doi:10.5194/cp-22-1159-2026 · Cited by 2
CRISPR ‐Dx and Metabarcoding Perform Similarly for Monitoring Mammals With eDNA on the Catchment Level in High‐Alpine Ecosystems
Leugger, F., Lüthi, M. N., Schmidlin, M., Thurnheer, S., Kontarakis, Z., & Pellissier, L. (2025) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.70161 · Cited by 2
DNA sequencing
Taberlet, P., Bonin, A., Zinger, L., & Coissac, É. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198767220.003.0007 · Cited by 2
Modelling of fatty acids signatures predicts macroalgal carbon in marine sediments
Erlania, E., Macreadie, P. I., Francis, D. S., & Bellgrove, A. (2024) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111715 · Cited by 2
A new dawn for chironomids in freshwater biomonitoring?
Ekrem, T. (2019) · CHIRONOMUS Journal of Chironomidae Research · doi:10.5324/cjcr.v0i32.3367 · Cited by 2
“Although progress has been made in recent years, DNA metabarcoding, for several reasons, does not provide reliable data on species abundances (Elbrecht and Leese 2015).”
Background
Mosquito excreta reveals circulation of West Nile virus and its underlying ecosystemPreprint
L’Ambert, G., Gendrot, M., Briolant, S., Nguyen, A., Pages, S., Bosio, L., Palomo, V., Gomez, N., Benoît, N., Savini, H., et al. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.12.05.471258 · Cited by 2
eDNA and Bioassessment of Rivers
McGee, K. M., Robinson, C. V., Porter, T. M., Compson, Z. G., Hajibabaei, M., & Baird, D. J. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-819166-8.00131-6 · Cited by 2
Interspecific allometric scaling in eDNA production in fishes reflects physiological and surface area allometryPreprint
Yates, M. C., Wilcox, T. W., Stoeckle, M. Y., & Heath, D. D. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.04.22.489177 · Cited by 2
“differences in PCR efficiency among species (Elbrecht and Leese 2015; Leese et al. 2021), community composition (Piñol et al.”
BackgroundInfluential
Abundance estimation with DNA metabarcoding – recent advancements for terrestrial arthropodsPreprint
Sickel, W., Zizka, V. M. A., Scherges, A. M., Bourlat, S. J., & Dieker, P. (2023) · doi:10.3897/arphapreprints.e109709 · Cited by 2
Metabarcoding of sedimentary ancient DNA reveals centuries of species turnover and introductions of non-indigenous species in a highly urbanised estuaryPreprint
Baños, E., Holman, L. E., Pratt, N., Cundy, A. B., Nogué, S., & Rius, M. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.12.02.691833 · Cited by 2
Marine environments
Taberlet, P., Bonin, A., Zinger, L., & Coissac, É. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198767220.003.0013 · Cited by 1
Methodologies for the identification of historic forest pathogen dynamics
Watkins, M. H., Consuegra, S., Woodborne, S. M., Johnson, J., & Froyd, C. A. (2025) · The Holocene · doi:10.1177/09596836251327723 · Cited by 1
“…of insect populations from sed aDNA samples, there are currently no standardised methods to screen species diversity or assess abundance (Elbrecht and Leese, 2015). qPCR has, however, been applied to the determination of detection probabilities in modern terrestrial eDNA samples for…”
A Chaetoceros bloom in the Western North Atlantic
Fuchsman, C. A., Duffy, M. E., & Hays, M. D. (2025) · Journal of Plankton Research · doi:10.1093/plankt/fbaf025 · Cited by 1
Integrating eDNA and community science to monitor urban Odonata diversity
Uche‐Dike, R., Tolman, E., Benischek, C., Schneider, M., Kohli, M. K., Bush, J., Frandsen, P. B., Errigo, I. M., Frankel, W., Gnojewski, K., et al. (2025) · Insect Conservation and Diversity · doi:10.1111/icad.70006 · Cited by 1
“These proportions align with conclusions from previous studies, where low invertebrate biomass yields low read counts, particularly for Odonates (Elbrecht & Leese, 2015; Schwesig et al., 2024).”

Authors: Elbrecht, V., & Leese, F.
Affiliations: Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
Corresponding author: Leese, Florian
ORCID: Elbrecht, Vasco
Leese, Florian
Venue: PLOS ONE
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published: 2015-07-08
Volume: 10
Issue: 7
Pages: e0130324
ISSN: 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130324
PMC: PMC4496048
OpenAlex: W1551951435
Semantic Scholar: 5b5925709b20821df1f956c4c737e5fadb1e8b43
Cited by: 765
References: 60
Citations by year: 2026: 75 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 108 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 3
FWCI: 56.82
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: gold
doi.org
Licence: cc-by
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Locations: PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
PubMed (publishedVersion)
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords: DNA metabarcoding, primer bias, species abundance estimation, COI barcoding, freshwater macroinvertebrates, Plecoptera, MiSeq sequencing, biodiversity assessment
MeSH terms: Animals, Electron Transport Complex IV, Diptera, DNA, Fresh Water, Haplotypes, Species Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Ecosystem, DNA Primers, Biomass, Biodiversity, DNA Barcoding, Taxonomic, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing, Odonata

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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

Can DNA-Based Ecosystem Assessments Quantify Species Abundance? Testing Primer Bias and Biomass—Sequence Relationships with an Innovative Metabarcoding Protocol

Abstract

Overview

AI snapshot

TL;DR

Key findings

Methods

Limitations

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks