ArticleBiology2025
Comparison of Environmental DNA Metabarcoding and Underwater Visual Census for Assessing Macrobenthic Diversity.
Article in Biology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid advancement of environmental DNA (eDNA) technology has transformed ecological research, particularly in aquatic ecosystems. However, the optimal sampling matrix (e.g., water or sediment) and the potential for eDNA to replace or complement traditional underwater visual census (UVC) remain unclear. Here, we integrate water eDNA, sediment eDNA, and UVC approaches to systematically compare the diversity of benthic macrofauna in the subtidal zones of the Nanji Islands, China. Our results show that sediment eDNA samples exhibited the highest species richness, while UVC had the lowest. Each method revealed distinct species profiles, with relatively few shared taxa at the order level and below. Environmental eDNA showed significant advantages in detecting key phyla such as Annelida and Arthropoda. In contrast, traditional UVC was crucial for identifying certain taxa, such as Bryozoa, which were undetectable by eDNA methods. The low overlap in species detected by these methods underscores their complementary nature, highlighting the necessity of integrating multiple approaches to achieve a more comprehensive and accurate biodiversity assessment. Future research should focus on refining eDNA techniques, such as developing more universal primers, to further enhance their applicability in biodiversity monitoring.
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.