A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Surveying lichen diversity in forests: A comparison of expert mapping and eDNA metabarcoding of bark surfaces. | LitMetric

Lichens are an important part of forest ecosystems, contributing to forest biodiversity, the formation of micro-niches and nutrient cycling. Assessing the diversity of lichenised fungi in complex ecosystems, such as forests, requires time and substantial skills in collecting and identifying lichens. The completeness of inventories thus largely depends on the expertise of the collector, time available for the survey and size of the studied area. Molecular methods of surveying biodiversity hold the promise to overcome these challenges. DNA barcoding of individual lichen specimens and bulk collections is already being applied; however, eDNA methods have not yet been evaluated as a tool for lichen surveys. Here, we assess which species of lichenised fungi can be detected in eDNA swabbed from bark surfaces of living trees in central European forests. We compare our findings to an expert floristic survey carried out in the same plots about a decade earlier. In total, we studied 150 plots located in three study regions across Germany. In each plot, we took one composite sample based on six trees, belonging to the species , and . The eDNA method yielded 123 species, the floristic survey 87. The total number of species found with both methods was 167, of which 48% were detected only in eDNA, 26% only in the floristic survey and 26% in both methods. The eDNA contained a higher diversity of inconspicuous species. Many prevalent taxa reported in the floristic survey could not be found in the eDNA due to gaps in molecular reference databases. We conclude that, currently, eDNA has merit as a complementary tool to monitor lichen biodiversity at large scales, but cannot be used on its own. We advocate for the further development of specialised and more complete databases.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11214015PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.106.117540DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

floristic survey
16
edna
8
bark surfaces
8
lichenised fungi
8
detected edna
8
survey
5
species
5
surveying lichen
4
lichen diversity
4
diversity forests
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!