ArticlePeerJ2024
Is it worth the extra mile? Comparing environmental DNA and RNA metabarcoding for vertebrate and invertebrate biodiversity surveys in a lowland stream.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. 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.
- Biomonitoring 3.0: Beyond Taxa Lists to Evidence-Tiered Monitoring of Ecosystem Dynamics and Interactions.Ecology and evolution · 2026Review
- Environmental RNA reflects seasonal changes in the metabolic activity of stream salamanders.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Differential decay of multiple environmental nucleic acid components.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has emerged as a promising approach to assess biodiversity and derive ecological status classes from water samples. However, a limitation of eDNA surveys is that detected DNA molecules may originate from other places or even dead organisms, distorting local biodiversity assessments. Environmental RNA (eRNA) metabarcoding has recently been proposed as a complementary tool for more localized assessments of the biological community. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of eDNA and eRNA metabarcoding for inferring the richness and species distribution patterns of vertebrates and invertebrates in a Central European lowland river. We collected water samples and analyzed them using a 12S marker for vertebrates and a COI marker for invertebrates. We detected 31 fish, 16 mammal, 10 bird and one lamprey species in the vertebrate dataset. While results were largely consistent, we detected a higher number of species when analysing eRNA (mean = 30.89) than eDNA (mean = 26.16). Also, eRNA detections had a stronger local signature than eDNA detections when compared against species distribution patterns from traditional fish monitoring data. For invertebrates, we detected 109 arthropod, 22 annelid, 12 rotiferan, eight molluscan and four cnidarian species. In contrast to the pattern of vertebrate richness, we detected a higher richness using eDNA (mean = 41.37) compared to eRNA (mean = 22.42). Our findings primarily show that eDNA and eRNA-based detections are comparable for vertebrate and invertebrate taxa. Biological replication was important for both template molecules studied. Signal detections for vertebrates were more localized for eRNA compared to eDNA. Overall, the advantages of the extra steps needed for eRNA analyses depend on the study question but both methods provide important data for biodiversity monitoring and research.
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.