ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparison of conventional methods and mosquito blood meal analysis to assess vertebrate diversity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- High-resolution characterisation of diel activity rhythms inCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Global biodiversity is declining at alarming rates, necessitating efficient and scalable biodiversity monitoring methods. This study evaluated the efficacy and efficiency of using mosquito blood meal analysis (MBA) as a tool to survey terrestrial vertebrate assemblages during wet and dry seasons in a subtropical landscape of central Florida. We compared the performance of MBA against that of a suite of conventional sampling methods for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. As a single method, MBA detected the highest number of species. Nonetheless, our results indicated that during the dry season, conventional methods were more effective and efficient than MBA, particularly for detecting small mammals and ectotherms. Similarly, in the wet season, conventional methods outperformed MBA in assessing the diversity of individual guilds. Nonetheless, during this season, MBA performance was comparable to that of the conventional techniques when the goal was to assess the entire vertebrate diversity. This is likely due to the higher abundance of adult mosquitoes in the landscape during the wet season. A community similarity analysis showed that MBA and conventional methods obtained different profiles of the vertebrate assemblages. Each method seemed to perform better for dissimilar sets of species. These findings highlight the potential of MBA as a scalable biodiversity monitoring tool, particularly as complementary to conventional methods, or stand-alone method under some environmental conditions. These results could also aid in identifying vertebrate species suitable to be surveyed using MBA.
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.