Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39544386›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2024

The Core of the Matter-Importance of Identification Method and Biological Replication for Benthic Marine Monitoring.

Mads Reinholdt Jensen, Sune Agersnap, Eva Egelyng Sigsgaard, Marcelo de Paula Ávila, Henrik Glenner, Mary S Wisz, Philip Francis Thomsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

7 authors.

Mads Reinholdt JensenDepartment of Biology Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8240-1083
Sune AgersnapDepartment of Biology Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9193-8069
Eva Egelyng SigsgaardDepartment of Biology Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9396-1550
Marcelo de Paula ÁvilaDepartment of Biology Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark.
Henrik GlennerDepartment of Biological Sciences University of Bergen Bergen Norway.
Mary S WiszOcean Sustainability, Governance and Management World Maritime University Malmö Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5357-6367
Philip Francis ThomsenDepartment of Biology Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9867-4366

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

benthic monitoringbenthic–pelagic couplingbiomonitoringcommunity assessmentecological statusKattegat

Identifiers

PMID39544386
PMCPMC11563695

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.