MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042728572 · doi:10.1002/edn3.111

Comparing environmental metabarcoding and trawling survey of demersal fish communities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada

2020· article· en· W3042728572 on OpenAlexaffabout
Seyedeh Fatemeh Afzali, Hugo Bourdages, Martin Laporte, Claire Mérot, Éric Normandeau, Céline Audet, Louis Bernatchez

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental DNA · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrawlingEnvironmental DNADemersal zoneDemersal fishFisheryBiodiversitySpecies richnessWater columnBottom trawlingWhitingFishingAbundance (ecology)EcologyVulnerable speciesEnvironmental scienceEndangered speciesBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Biodiversity assessment is an important part of conservation management that ideally can be accomplished with noninvasive methods without influencing the structure and functioning of ecosystems. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has provided a promising tool to enable fast and comprehensive monitoring of entire ecosystems, but widespread adoption of this technique requires performance evaluations that compare it with conventional surveys. We compared eDNA metabarcoding and trawling data to evaluate their efficiency to characterize demersal fish communities in the Estuary and Gulf of Saint‐Lawrence, Canada. Seawater and bottom trawling samples were collected in parallel at 84 stations. For a subset of 30 of these stations, water was also collected at three different depths (15, 50, and 250 m) across the water column. An eDNA metabarcoding assay based on the 12S mitochondrial gene using the MiFish‐U primers was applied to detect fish eDNA. We detected a total of 88 fish species with both methods combined, with 72 species being detected by eDNA, 64 species detected by trawl, and 47 species (53%) overlapped between both methods. eDNA was more efficient for quantifying species richness, mainly because it detected species known to be less vulnerable to trawling gear. Our results indicated that the relative abundance estimated by eDNA and trawl is significantly correlated for species detected by both methods, while the relationship was also influenced by environmental variables (temperature, depth, salinity, and oxygen). Integrating eDNA metabarcoding to bottom trawling surveys could provide additional information on vertical fish distribution in the water column. Environmental DNA metabarcoding thus appears to be a reliable and complementary approach to trawling surveys for documenting fish biodiversity, including for obtaining relative quantitative estimates in the marine environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations114
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental DNASame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207