ArticleEcology and evolution2023
Using eDNA for mammal inventories still needs naturalist expertise, a meta-analysis.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of conventional methods and mosquito blood meal analysis to assess vertebrate diversity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- SynGenes: a Python class for standardizing nomenclatures of mitochondrial and chloroplast genes and a web form for enhancing searches for evolutionary analyses.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Using eDNA for mammal inventories still needs naturalist expertise, a meta-analysis.Ecology and evolution · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA from the environment (eDNA) has been increasingly used as a new tool to conduct biodiversity assessment. Because of its noninvasive and less time-consuming nature, many studies of recent years solely rely on this information to establish a species inventory. eDNA metabarcoding has been shown to be an efficient method in aquatic ecosystems, especially for fish. However, detection efficiency is not clear for mammals. Using the existing literature, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate if eDNA metabarcoding allows greater detection success compared to conventional surveys (such as field surveys, camera traps, etc.). Although only 28 articles were retrieved, showing the lack of comparative studies, still representing more than 900 taxa detected, we found that detection success was method dependent, but most importantly varies on the taxonomy of the targeted taxa. eDNA metabarcoding performed poorly for bats compared to the traditional mist nests. However, strong detection overlaps were found between conventional surveys and eDNA for large-bodied mammals such as ungulates, primates, and carnivores. Overall, we argue that using both molecular and field approaches can complement each other and can maximize the most accurate biodiversity assessment and there is much room for metabarcoding optimization to reach their full potential compared to traditional surveys.
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.