Assessing different components of diversity 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 detect taxa and therefore may allow to accurately measure biodiversity. However, we do not yet fully understand the comparability of eDNA‐based assessments to classical morphological approaches. We assessed may‐, stone‐, and caddisfly genera with two contemporary methods, namely eDNA sampling followed by molecular identification and kicknet sampling followed by morphological identification. We sampled 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 data with historical morphological records of total diversity at the catchment level. At the catchment scale, identification based on eDNA and kicknet samples detected similar proportions of the overall and cumulative historically documented richness (gamma diversity), 42% and 46%, respectively. We detected a good overlap (62%) between genera identified from eDNA and kicknet samples at the regional scale. At the local scale, we found highly congruent values of local taxon richness (alpha diversity) between eDNA and kicknet samples. Richness of eDNA was positively related to discharge, a descriptor of network position, while kicknet was not. Beta diversity, a measure of dissimilarity between sites, was comparable for the two contemporary methods and is driven by species replacement and not by nestedness. Although eDNA approaches are still in their infancy and optimization regarding sampling design and laboratory work is still needed, our results indicate that it can capture different components of diversity, proving its potential utility as a new tool for large sampling campaigns across hitherto understudied complete river catchments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".