Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34547039›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Environmental DNA gives comparable results to morphology-based indices of macroinvertebrates in a large-scale ecological assessment.

Jeanine Brantschen, Rosetta C Blackman, Jean-Claude Walser, Florian Altermatt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Measuring the state of aquatic environments using eDNA-upscaling spatial resolution of biotic indices.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jeanine BrantschenDepartment of Aquatic Ecology, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Duebendorf, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2945-3607
Rosetta C BlackmanDepartment of Aquatic Ecology, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Duebendorf, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jean-Claude WalserDepartment of Environmental Systems Science, Genetic Diversity Center, Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Florian AltermattDepartment of Aquatic Ecology, Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Duebendorf, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anthropogenic activities are changing the state of ecosystems worldwide, affecting community composition and often resulting in loss of biodiversity. Rivers are among the most impacted ecosystems. Recording their current state with regular biomonitoring is important to assess the future trajectory of biodiversity. Traditional monitoring methods for ecological assessments are costly and time-intensive. Here, we compared monitoring of macroinvertebrates based on environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling with monitoring based on traditional kick-net sampling to assess biodiversity patterns at 92 river sites covering all major Swiss river catchments. From the kick-net community data, a biotic index (IBCH) based on 145 indicator taxa had been established. The index was matched by the taxonomically annotated eDNA data by using a machine learning approach. Our comparison of diversity patterns only uses the zero-radius Operational Taxonomic Units assigned to the indicator taxa. Overall, we found a strong congruence between both methods for the assessment of the total indicator community composition (gamma diversity). However, when assessing biodiversity at the site level (alpha diversity), the methods were less consistent and gave complementary data on composition. Specifically, environmental DNA retrieved significantly fewer indicator taxa per site than the kick-net approach. Importantly, however, the subsequent ecological classification of rivers based on the detected indicators resulted in similar biotic index scores for the kick-net and the eDNA data that was classified using a random forest approach. The majority of the predictions (72%) from the random forest classification resulted in the same river status categories as the kick-net approach. Thus, environmental DNA validly detected indicator communities and, combined with machine learning, provided reliable classifications of the ecological state of rivers. Overall, while environmental DNA gives complementary data on the macroinvertebrate community composition compared to the kick-net approach, the subsequently calculated indices for the ecological classification of river sites are nevertheless directly comparable and consistent.

Indexed as

EcosystemAnimalsBiodiversityBiological MonitoringDNA, EnvironmentalInvertebratesRiversDNA, Environmental

Identifiers

PMID34547039
PMCPMC8454941

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.