Replicate DNA metabarcoding can discriminate seasonal and spatial abundance shifts in river macroinvertebrate assemblages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabarcoding is capable of delivering consistent and accurate fine-resolution biodiversity data, and offers great promise for improving aspects of environmental assessment and research. Even so, many ecologists are keen to make further inferences about species’ abundances and the number of sequence reads has proven to be a poor proxy for abundance. The conservative interpretation has been to treat metabarcoding data as presence/absence, and although such data are less rich, occurrence and abundance are only different expressions of the same phenomenon. Interestingly if we assume the probability of detecting individuals is constant, it should be possible to use changes in the frequency of detection to infer changes in the underlying abundance. We tested the possibility that changes in the abundance structure of benthic macroinvertebrate communities could be recovered using replicated metabarcoding. We conducted 5 monthly surveys from Jun-Nov 2019 at the Catamaran Brook, a small tributary of the Little Southwest Miramichi River in New Brunswick, Canada. Each survey collected 30 benthic samples divided between control and treatment cages that excluded predatory fish. A further 6 samples were taken for traditional microscopic identification and counting. Analysis of the metabarcoding data demonstrated that we could recover plausible changes in abundance from occurrence data, including significant responses to both seasonal dynamics and the experimental exclusion of predators. The microscopy samples merely confirmed that count data are highly stochastic, and therefore while specific estimates of expected abundance from our model are highly uncertain, they capture those differences we could validate. In summary, while we confirmed that occurrence data are more robust for routine bioassessment, it is possible to recover fine-resolution changes in abundance that can inform ecological studies using metabarcoding.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".