ArticleScientific reports2019
Detection of introduced and resident marine species using environmental DNA metabarcoding of sediment and water.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 39 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 193 citations in OpenAlex.
- Getting to the Core of the Matter-Assessing the Role of Replication in Metabarcoding-Based sedaDNA.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Article
- Classifying avian drinking behaviour: ecological insights and implications in a changing world.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- Spatio-temporal metabarcoding surveys in ports reveal homogenised communities of non-indigenous species with high genetic diversity and connectivity.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative Multi-Marker Environmental DNA Metabarcoding of Marine Metazoan Communities: Water vs. Sediment.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Properties and Limitations of eDNA Substrates for Terrestrial Animal Monitoring.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Review
- Uncovering Putative Bacterial Pathogens in Lakes in Aotearoa New Zealand Using Environmental DNA.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- Environmental DNA (eDNA) Technology in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Research: Advances and Prospects.Ecology and evolution · 2026Review
- Progress, challenges and future directions in marine organic-walled dinoflagellate cyst research: New insights from an international workshop.Marine micropaleontology · 2025Article
- The use of environmental RNA for inferring fish spawning behavior.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- The Role of Community Science in DNA-Based Biodiversity Monitoring.Molecular ecology · 2025Review
- Aquatic eDNA outperforms sedimentary eDNA for the detection of estuarine fish communities in subtropical coastal vegetated ecosystems.Journal of fish biology · 2025Article
- Cas9-based enrichment for targeted long-read metabarcoding.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Investigating Non-Native Ribbon WormMarine drugs · 2024Article
- Metabarcoding study to reveal the structural community of strongylid nematodes in domesticated horses in Thailand.BMC veterinary research · 2024Article
- A new sampling device for metabarcoding surveillance of port communities and detection of non-indigenous species.iScience · 2024Article
- Pest Alert Tool-a web-based application for flagging species of concern in metabarcoding datasets.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys are increasingly being used for biodiversity monitoring, principally because they are sensitive and can provide high resolution community composition data. Despite considerable progress in recent years, eDNA studies examining how different environmental sample types can affect species detectability remain rare. Comparisons of environmental samples are especially important for providing best practice guidance on early detection and subsequent mitigation of non-indigenous species. Here we used eDNA metabarcoding of COI (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I) and 18S (nuclear small subunit ribosomal DNA) genes to compare community composition between sediment and water samples in artificial coastal sites across the United Kingdom. We first detected markedly different communities and a consistently greater number of distinct operational taxonomic units in sediment compared to water. We then compared our eDNA datasets with previously published rapid assessment biodiversity surveys and found excellent concordance among the different survey techniques. Finally, our eDNA surveys detected many non-indigenous species, including several newly introduced species, highlighting the utility of eDNA metabarcoding for both early detection and temporal / spatial monitoring of non-indigenous species. We conclude that careful consideration on environmental sample type is needed when conducting eDNA surveys, especially for studies assessing community change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.