ArticleJournal of phycology2026
Dive surveys and eDNA detect contrasting macroalgal community composition in Nova Scotia, Canada.
Article in Journal of phycology, 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.
- Dive surveys and eDNA detect contrasting macroalgal community composition in Nova Scotia, Canada.Journal of phycology · 2026Article
- A Multilocus Nanopore eDNA Workflow for Red Algal Diversity Assessment in an Algal Reef System.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Morphological identification of macroalgae can be time-consuming and species may be difficult to observe, collect, or identify, preventing detailed study on the distribution and ecology of many species. The use of eDNA in species surveillance and biodiversity assessments has gained considerable traction in studying macroalgae, as it provides an opportunity for increased sampling efficiency and a reduced reliance on taxonomic expertise for morphological identification. However, it is crucial to understand how eDNA tools may bias results of species diversity and detection and how these biases differ from traditional morphological surveys. The present study compared species composition and detection rates of dive quadrat collections with a combination of morphological identification and DNA barcoding (i.e., traditional survey methods) to two types of eDNA tools: quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) using four species-specific qPCR assays and metabarcoding using two metabarcoding markers. Metabarcoding detected nearly two times more species than traditional surveys; however, species overlap was as low as 19.2%, and some large conspicuous and ecologically important macroalgae were not detected by metabarcoding. This result suggests that metabarcoding uncovers a host of taxa largely distinct from dive surveys. Metabarcoding and qPCR proved capable of detecting target species even at very low abundances, but both showed a high incidence of false negatives. Results presented here support a combined approach leveraging the considerable strengths of eDNA in concert with species validation and abundance metrics provided by tradtional surveys.
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.