ArticlePeerJ2022
A manager's guide to using eDNA metabarcoding in marine ecosystems.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating Cetacean Mitochondrial Genome Data: Identifying Coverage and Deficiencies in Public Repositories.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Article
- MetaZooGene Intercalibration Experiment (MZG-ICE): Metabarcoding Marine Zooplankton Diversity of the Global Ocean.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Evaluating Prey Availability for the Rice's Whale (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Review
- A long-term ecological research dataset from the marine genetic monitoring programme ARMS-MBON 2020-2021.Biodiversity data journal · 2025Article
- Advancing the environmental DNA and RNA toolkit for aquatic ecosystem monitoring and management.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Signal and noise in metabarcoding data.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Looking to the past to inform the future: What eDNA from herbarium specimens can tell us about plant-animal interactions.Applications in plant sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is a powerful tool that can enhance marine ecosystem/biodiversity monitoring programs. Here we outline five important steps managers and researchers should consider when developing eDNA monitoring program: (1) select genes and primers to target taxa; (2) assemble or develop comprehensive barcode reference databases; (3) apply rigorous site occupancy based decontamination pipelines; (4) conduct pilot studies to define spatial and temporal variance of eDNA; and (5) archive samples, extracts, and raw sequence data. We demonstrate the importance of each of these considerations using a case study of eDNA metabarcoding in the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. eDNA metabarcoding approaches detected 94.1% (16/17) of species observed in paired trawl surveys while identifying an additional 55 native fishes, providing more comprehensive biodiversity inventories. Rigorous benchmarking of eDNA metabarcoding results improved ecological interpretation and confidence in species detections while providing archived genetic resources for future analyses. Well designed and validated eDNA metabarcoding approaches are ideally suited for biomonitoring applications that rely on the detection of species, including mapping invasive species fronts and endangered species habitats as well as tracking range shifts in response to climate change. Incorporating these considerations will enhance the utility and efficacy of eDNA metabarcoding for routine biomonitoring applications.
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.