A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: fopen(/var/lib/php/sessions/ci_sessioncu7niennsv1k3cn4dr7vj5klaugub1qa): Failed to open stream: No space left on device

Filename: drivers/Session_files_driver.php

Line Number: 177

Backtrace:

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

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: session_start(): Failed to read session data: user (path: /var/lib/php/sessions)

Filename: Session/Session.php

Line Number: 137

Backtrace:

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

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 143

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 143
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 209
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3098
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

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

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: Attempt to read property "Count" on bool

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 3100

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3100
Function: _error_handler

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

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

Is it worth the extra mile? Comparing environmental DNA and RNA metabarcoding for vertebrate and invertebrate biodiversity surveys in a lowland stream. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Environmental DNA (eDNA) and environmental RNA (eRNA) metabarcoding are techniques used to assess biodiversity in aquatic environments, each with distinct strengths and limitations.
  • The study evaluated these methods in a Central European river, finding eRNA to detect more vertebrate species with a stronger local signature, while eDNA was more effective for invertebrates.
  • Both methods can provide valuable biodiversity data, but the choice between them depends on the specific research question being asked.

Article Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has emerged as a promising approach to assess biodiversity and derive ecological status classes from water samples. However, a limitation of eDNA surveys is that detected DNA molecules may originate from other places or even dead organisms, distorting local biodiversity assessments. Environmental RNA (eRNA) metabarcoding has recently been proposed as a complementary tool for more localized assessments of the biological community. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of eDNA and eRNA metabarcoding for inferring the richness and species distribution patterns of vertebrates and invertebrates in a Central European lowland river. We collected water samples and analyzed them using a 12S marker for vertebrates and a COI marker for invertebrates. We detected 31 fish, 16 mammal, 10 bird and one lamprey species in the vertebrate dataset. While results were largely consistent, we detected a higher number of species when analysing eRNA (mean = 30.89) than eDNA (mean = 26.16). Also, eRNA detections had a stronger local signature than eDNA detections when compared against species distribution patterns from traditional fish monitoring data. For invertebrates, we detected 109 arthropod, 22 annelid, 12 rotiferan, eight molluscan and four cnidarian species. In contrast to the pattern of vertebrate richness, we detected a higher richness using eDNA (mean = 41.37) compared to eRNA (mean = 22.42). Our findings primarily show that eDNA and eRNA-based detections are comparable for vertebrate and invertebrate taxa. Biological replication was important for both template molecules studied. Signal detections for vertebrates were more localized for eRNA compared to eDNA. Overall, the advantages of the extra steps needed for eRNA analyses depend on the study question but both methods provide important data for biodiversity monitoring and research.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11512801PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.18016DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

environmental dna
8
vertebrate invertebrate
8
edna
8
water samples
8
erna metabarcoding
8
species distribution
8
distribution patterns
8
invertebrates detected
8
detected higher
8
erna
7

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!