ArticleEcology and evolution2024
The Core of the Matter-Importance of Identification Method and Biological Replication for Benthic Marine Monitoring.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 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.
- Optimizing Marine eDNA Protocols for Rare Megafauna: A Case Study on Dugongs in the Western Indian Ocean.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Getting to the Core of the Matter-Assessing the Role of Replication in Metabarcoding-Based sedaDNA.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Benthic macrofauna are important and widely used biological indicators of marine ecosystems as they have limited mobility and therefore integrate the effects of local environmental stressors over time. Recently, environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis has provided a potentially more resource-efficient approach for benthic biomonitoring than traditional morphology-based methods. Several studies have compared eDNA with morphology-based monitoring, but few have compared the two approaches using the exact same sediment cores. In addition, the meiofauna and pelagic organisms obtained as 'bycatch' using eDNA have largely been disregarded from comparisons. Here, we address these shortcomings through comparative invertebrate analyses of six sediment sample replicates from each of four stations in Denmark, using eDNA metabarcoding and morphological identification. Our results revealed large variation between the six replicates for both methods and little overlap in taxon compositions between methods. While the morphological dataset was dominated by molluscs and annelids, the eDNA dataset was dominated by arthropods and annelids. Using community composition data, we found that sampling stations could be distinguished both with eDNA and morphology. Finally, we inferred expected total richness from extrapolated accumulation curves of detected taxa from each method. This indicated that eDNA metabarcoding requires less replication than morphology for maximum coverage of diversity to be reached. However, both methods required high levels of replication, and our results on taxonomic composition add to the evidence that morphological and eDNA-based methods should preferably be used as complimentary tools for marine bioassessment.
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.