ArticleBMC ecology and evolution2024
The dilemma of underestimating freshwater biodiversity: morphological and molecular approaches.
Article in BMC ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnthropogenic impacts on freshwater habitats are causing a recent biodiversity decline far greater than that documented for most terrestrial ecosystems. However, knowledge and description of freshwater biodiversity is still limited, especially targeting all size classes to uncover the distribution of biodiversity between different trophic levels. We assessed the biodiversity of the Lower Rhine and associated water bodies in the river's flood plain including the river's main channel, oxbows and gravel-pit lakes, spanning from the level of protists up to the level of larger invertebrate predators and herbivores organized in size classes (nano-, micro, meio- and macrofauna). Morphological diversity was determined by morphotypes, while the molecular diversity (amplicon sequencing variants, ASVs) was assessed through eDNA samples with metabarcoding targeting the V9 region of the 18S rDNA.
resultsConsidering all four investigated size classes, the percentage of shared taxa between both approaches eDNA (ASVs with 80-100% sequence similarity to reference sequences) and morphology (morphotypes), was always below 15% (5.4 ± 3.9%). Even with a more stringent filtering of ASVs (98-100% similarity), the overlap of taxa could only reach up to 43% (18.3 ± 12%). We observed low taxonomic resolution of reference sequences from freshwater organisms in public databases for all size classes, especially for nano-, micro-, and meiofauna, furthermore lacking metainformation if species occur in freshwater, marine or terrestrial ecosystems.
conclusionsIn our study, we provide a combination of morphotype detection and metabarcoding that particularly reveals the diversity in the smaller size classes and furthermore highlights the lack of genetic resources in reference databases for this diversity. Especially for protists (nano- and microfauna), a combination of molecular and morphological approaches is needed to gain the highest possible community resolution. The assessment of freshwater biodiversity needs to account for its sub-structuring in different ecological size classes and across compartments in order to reveal the ecological dimension of diversity and its distribution.
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.