Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38077514›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2023

Using eDNA for mammal inventories still needs naturalist expertise, a meta-analysis.

Pauline Van Leeuwen, Johan Michaux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Pauline Van LeeuwenConservation Genetics Laboratory University of Liège Liège Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9558-1359
Johan MichauxConservation Genetics Laboratory University of Liège Liège Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4644-9244

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

assessmentbiodiversityeDNAenvironmental DNAiDNAmammalsmeta‐analysissurvey

Identifiers

PMID38077514
PMCPMC10701181

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.