Variations in terrestrial arthropod DNA metabarcoding methods recovers robust beta diversity but variable richness and site indicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terrestrial arthropod fauna have been suggested as a key indicator of ecological integrity in forest systems. Because phenotypic identification is expert-limited, a shift towards DNA metabarcoding could improve scalability and democratize the use of forest floor arthropods for biomonitoring applications. The objective of this study was to establish the level of field sampling and DNA extraction replication needed for arthropod biodiversity assessments from soil. Processing 15 individually collected soil samples recovered significantly higher median richness (488-614 sequence variants) than pooling the same number of samples (165-191 sequence variants) prior to DNA extraction, and we found no significant richness differences when using 1 or 3 pooled DNA extractions. Beta diversity was robust to changes in methodological regimes. Though our ability to identify taxa to species rank was limited, we were able to use arthropod COI metabarcodes from forest soil to assess richness, distinguish among sites, and recover site indicators based on unnamed exact sequence variants. Our results highlight the need to continue DNA barcoding local taxa during COI metabarcoding studies to help build reference databases. All together, these sampling considerations support the use of soil arthropod COI metabarcoding as a scalable method for biomonitoring.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".