Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 183

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Large-Scale Monitoring of Plants through Environmental DNA Metabarcoding of Soil: Recovery, Resolution, and Annotation of Four DNA Markers

Open access
Fahner, Nicole A., Shokralla, Shadi, Baird, Donald J., Hajibabaei, Mehrdad·2016·PLOS ONE

Abstract

In a rapidly changing world we need methods to efficiently assess biodiversity in order to monitor ecosystem trends. Ecological monitoring often uses plant community composition to infer quality of sites but conventional aboveground surveys only capture a snapshot of the actively growing plant diversity. Environmental DNA (eDNA) extracted from soil samples, however, can include taxa represented by both active and dormant tissues, seeds, pollen, and detritus. Analysis of this eDNA through DNA metabarcoding provides a more comprehensive view of plant diversity at a site from a single assessment but it is not clear which DNA markers are best used to capture this diversity. Sequence recovery, annotation, and sequence resolution among taxa were evaluated for four established DNA markers (matK, rbcL, ITS2, and the trnL P6 loop) in silico using database sequences and in situ using high throughput sequencing of 35 soil samples from a remote boreal wetland. Overall, ITS2 and rbcL are recommended for DNA metabarcoding of vascular plants from eDNA when not using customized or geographically restricted reference databases. We describe a new framework for evaluating DNA metabarcodes and, contrary to existing assumptions, we found that full length DNA barcode regions could outperform shorter markers for surveying plant diversity from soil samples. By using current DNA barcoding markers rbcL and ITS2 for plant metabarcoding, we can take advantage of existing resources such as the growing DNA barcode database. Our work establishes the value of standard DNA barcodes for soil plant eDNA analysis in ecological investigations and biomonitoring programs and supports the collaborative development of DNA barcoding and metabarcoding.

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.0157505

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 183

Metadata

Authors
Fahner, N. A., Shokralla, S., Baird, D. J., & Hajibabaei, M.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2016-06-16
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
e0157505
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2427444673
Cited by
183
References
3
FWCI
19.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Large-Scale Monitoring of Plants through Environmental DNA Metabarcoding of Soil: Recovery, Resolution, and Annotation of Four DNA Markers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0157505
The paper
Fahner, N. A., Shokralla, S., Baird, D. J., & Hajibabaei, M. (2016). Large-Scale Monitoring of Plants through Environmental DNA Metabarcoding of Soil: Recovery, Resolution, and Annotation of Four DNA Markers. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157505

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.