ArticleMolecular ecology resources2023
Comparing invasive and noninvasive faecal sampling in wildlife microbiome studies: A case study on wild common cranes.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The elephant (bird) in the room: unknown mechanisms and unresolved impacts of low DNA yields in avian microbiome research.Animal microbiome · 2026Article
- Post-defecation exposure alters gut microbiota of forest musk deer with implications for conservation metagenomics.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Functional potential of gut microbiota inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- A Preliminary Investigation of the Gastrointestinal Bacterial Microbiomes of Barred Owls (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Geographical Differences and Temporal Dynamics of Intestinal Microbiota in Endangered Great BustardInternational journal of microbiology · 2025Article
- Wild Avian Gut Microbiome at a Small Spatial Scale: A Study from a Mediterranean Island Population ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Comparing invasive and noninvasive faecal sampling in wildlife microbiome studies: A case study on wild common cranes.Molecular ecology resources · 2023Article
- Host genetic background rather than diet-induced gut microbiota shifts of sympatric black-necked crane, common crane and bar-headed goose.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In ecological and conservation studies, responsible researchers strive to obtain rich data while minimizing disturbance to wildlife and ecosystems. We assessed if samples collected noninvasively can be used for faecal microbiome research, comparing microbiota of noninvasively collected faecal samples to those collected from trapped common cranes at the same sites over the same periods. We found significant differences in faecal microbial composition (alpha and beta diversity), which likely did not result from noninvasive sample exposure to soil contaminants, as assessed by comparing bacterial oxygen use profiles. Differences might result from trapped birds' exposure to sedatives or stress. We conclude that if all samples are collected in the same manner, comparative analyses are valid, and noninvasive sampling may better represent host faecal microbiota because there are no trapping effects. Experiments with fresh and delayed sample collection can elucidate effects of environmental exposures on microbiota. Further, controlled tests of stressing or sedation may unravel how trapping affects wildlife microbiota.
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.