Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33767219›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

eDNA metabarcoding for biodiversity assessment, generalist predators as sampling assistants.

Louise Nørgaard, Carsten Riis Olesen, Kristian Trøjelsgaard, Cino Pertoldi, Jeppe Lund Nielsen, Pierre Taberlet, Aritz Ruiz-González, Marta De Barba, Laura Iacolina

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Herbivorous dietary selection shown by hawfinch (Royal Society open science · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Pollinator nutrition and its role in merging the dual objectives of pollinator health and optimal crop production.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Louise NørgaardDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7H, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark. lnorga10@hotmail.com.
Carsten Riis OlesenDanmarks Jægerforbund, Molsvej 34, 8410, Rønde, Denmark.
Kristian TrøjelsgaardDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7H, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark.
Cino PertoldiDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7H, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark.
Jeppe Lund NielsenDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7H, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark.
Pierre TaberletCNRS, Laboratoire D'Ecologie Alpine (LECA), Univ. Grenoble Alpes, 38000, Grenoble, France.
Aritz Ruiz-GonzálezDepartment of Zoology and Animal Cell Biology, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, C/Paseo de la Universidad 7, 01006, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.
Marta De Barba *CNRS, Laboratoire D'Ecologie Alpine (LECA), Univ. Grenoble Alpes, 38000, Grenoble, France.
Laura Iacolina *Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7H, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark.
Aalborg University · DKAalborg ZooCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRLaboratoire d'Écologie Alpine · FRMonash University · AUUniversity of the Basque Country · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With an accelerating negative impact of anthropogenic actions on natural ecosystems, non-invasive biodiversity assessments are becoming increasingly crucial. As a consequence, the interest in the application of environmental DNA (eDNA) survey techniques has increased. The use of eDNA extracted from faeces from generalist predators, have recently been described as "biodiversity capsules" and suggested as a complementary tool for improving current biodiversity assessments. In this study, using faecal samples from two generalist omnivore species, the Eurasian badger and the red fox, we evaluated the applicability of eDNA metabarcoding in determining dietary composition, compared to macroscopic diet identification techniques. Subsequently, we used the dietary information obtained to assess its contribution to biodiversity assessments. Compared to classic macroscopic techniques, we found that eDNA metabarcoding detected more taxa, at higher taxonomic resolution, and proved to be an important technique to verify the species identification of the predator from field collected faeces. Furthermore, we showed how dietary analyses complemented field observations in describing biodiversity by identifying consumed flora and fauna that went unnoticed during field observations. While diet analysis approaches could not substitute field observations entirely, we suggest that their integration with other methods might overcome intrinsic limitations of single techniques in future biodiversity surveys.

Indexed as

BiodiversityDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicFood ChainAnimal FeedAnimalsDenmarkDNA, EnvironmentalEcosystemFecesGeographyDNA, Environmental

Identifiers

PMID33767219
PMCPMC7994446
OpenAlexW3139348677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.