ArticlePloS one2026
Assessment of leaf-litter invertebrate biodiversity using high throughput sequencing.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Leaf litter ecosystems and their fauna are largely understudied, despite their critical ecological roles. Here, we investigate challenges associated with estimating biodiversity in terrestrial leaf litter. Current methodologies for biodiversity assessment are fraught with limitations; amongst the most significant is a decline in taxonomic expertise, complicating the process of species identification and the significant costs associated with species-level morphological identifications. DNA barcoding employs molecular markers to identify animal species, and the mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) is the agreed upon standard for animals. DNA metabarcoding facilitates the identification of multiple species without necessitating taxonomic expertise. Recent studies indicate that environmental DNA (eDNA) may exhibit greater sensitivity compared to taxonomic identifications completed on animals collected using traditional methods (e.g., pitfall traps, pan traps). To test whether eDNA methodology works in a real-world scenario, we sampled leaf litter across a temperate forest/field ecotone. Leaf litter was dried, ground and processed to extract environmental DNA. We evaluated multiple DNA extraction protocols to test their relative efficacy. We found that the Qiagen Blood and Tissue Kit was the most effective at recovering invertebrate diversity and found that there were notable differences in the biodiversity recovered between forest and field habitats. Temperature emerged as a significant factor influencing the composition of the communities observed. Our methodology is applicable across various environments for efficient biodiversity assessment and would be particularly beneficial for monitoring pests and invasive species. Our approach offers a cost-effective and timely alternative to conventional biodiversity assessment methods and underscores the significance of accurate assessment methodologies for leaf litter communities.
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.