ArticleMolecular ecology resources2026
Comparison of Environmental DNA and Bulk DNA Metabarcoding for Assessing Terrestrial Arthropod Diversity Across Three Habitat Types on Guam.
Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three sampling strategies reveal spatial and methodological patterns in macroinvertebrate diversity in freshwater habitats.iScience · 2026Article
- Assessing Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes Through Drone-Based Environmental DNA Sampling.Ecology and evolution · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
DNA-based methods offer a rapid and cost-effective way for detecting species occurrence and monitoring biodiversity; among them, bulk DNA metabarcoding is well-established, and recently developed environmental DNA (eDNA)-based methods offer a non-lethal alternative. With a goal to develop suitable methods for assessing insect biodiversity for understudied island ecosystems where DNA reference libraries are incomplete, we compared established bulk DNA metabarcoding methods with eDNA across three replicated terrestrial ecosystem types (degraded forest, limestone forest, and grassland) on the island of Guam. Using two mitochondrial COI primer pairs, we performed bulk DNA metabarcoding of standard entomological collection methods (Malaise traps, pan traps, and vegetation beating), and compared the assessment of biodiversity with that from different eDNA sources (flowers, leaves, tree trunks, and spider webs). In our samples, eDNA and bulk DNA metabarcoding both detected a large proportion of overall taxa (OTUs, 86.6% and 60.3%, respectively). Although bulk DNA metabarcoding detected significantly more taxa, eDNA proved to be a reasonable non-lethal alternative. As expected, because of limitations in existing reference databases for understudied systems, species-level identification was achieved for only a few OTUs. Overall, the sampling approach was the dominant driver of arthropod diversity, explaining ~17% of the observed variation, while habitat type accounted for ~4%. Thus, each sampling approach captured some unique diversity and contributed to the complementary effect of maximizing detection. For rapid biodiversity surveys of terrestrial arthropods, we recommend integrating metabarcoding approaches, and in sensitive ecosystems where specimen capture is undesirable, eDNA offers a powerful non-lethal alternative to monitor diversity and community change.
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.