ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison between eDNA and traditional morphological methods for fish diversity monitoring in rivers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Environmental DNA (eDNA) is increasingly employed for biodiversity monitoring, yet its accuracy and consistency relative to conventional fish surveys remain under debate. Here, we evaluated fish assemblages at 14 sites across six major rivers in Liaoning Province, China, using four primer sets (12 S rRNA, COI, MiFish, and a high-variation MiFish) coupled with high-throughput sequencing, and compared results with capture-based surveys. eDNA detected 211 species across 17 orders, 71 families, and 146 genera-substantially exceeding traditional methods-but failed to identify nine species recorded morphologically and could not provide ecological attributes such as body size or population structure. Species richness and composition varied between tributary and mainstem sites, reflecting hydrological and habitat gradients. Detection efficiency also differed among primers, underscoring the importance of multi-primer strategies. Overall, eDNA provides a sensitive and efficient complement to conventional surveys, but its limitations in taxonomic resolution and ecological inference highlight the need for integration of molecular and conventional morphological methods to achieve comprehensive fish diversity assessments.
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.