Assessing different components of biodiversity across a river network using eDNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Assessing individual components of biodiversity, such as local or regional taxon richness, and differences in community composition is a long-standing challenge in ecology. It is especially relevant in spatially structured and diverse ecosystems. Environmental DNA (eDNA) has been suggested as a novel technique to accurately measure biodiversity. However, we do not yet fully understand the comparability of eDNA-based assessments to previously used approaches. We sampled may-, stone-, and caddisfly genera with contemporary eDNA and kicknet methods at 61 sites distributed over a large river network, allowing a comparison of various diversity measures from the catchment to site levels and providing insights into how these measures relate to network properties. We extended our survey data with historical records of total diversity at the catchment level. At the catchment scale, eDNA and kicknet detected similar proportions of the overall and cumulative historically documented species richness (gamma diversity), namely 42% and 46%, respectively. We further found a good overlap (62%) between the two contemporary methods at the regional scale. At the local scale, we found highly congruent values of local taxon richness (alpha diversity) between eDNA and kicknet. Richness of eDNA was positively related with discharge, a descriptor of network position, while kicknet was not. Beta diversity between sites was similar for the two contemporary methods. Contrary to our expectation, however, beta diversity was driven by species replacement and not by nestedness. Although optimization of eDNA approaches is still needed, our results indicate that this novel technique can capture extensive aspects of gamma diversity, proving its potential utility as a new tool for large sampling campaigns across hitherto understudied complete river catchments, requiring less time and becoming more cost-efficient than classical approaches. Overall, the richness estimated with the two contemporary methods is similar at both local and regional scale but community composition is differently assessed with the two methods at individual sites and becomes more similar with higher discharge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".