Multi-marker DNA metabarcoding detects suites of environmental gradients from an urban harbour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing need for biodiversity monitoring, especially in places where potential anthropogenic disturbance may significantly impact ecosystem health. We employed a combination of traditional morphological and bulk macroinvertebrate metabarcoding analyses to benthic samples collected from Toronto Harbour (Ontario, Canada) to compare taxonomic and functional diversity of macroinvertebrates and their responses to environmental gradients. At the species rank, sites assessed using COI metabarcoding showed more variation than sites assessed using morphological methods. Depending on the assessment method, we detected gradients in magnesium (morphological taxa), ammonia (morphological taxa, COI sequence variants), pH (18S sequence variants) as well as gradients in contaminants such as metals (COI & 18S sequence variants) and organochlorines (COI sequence variants). Observed responses to contaminants such as aromatic hydrocarbons and metals align with known patchy distributions in harbour sediments. We determined that the morphological approach may limit the detection of macroinvertebrate responses to lake environmental conditions due to the effort needed to obtain fine level taxonomic assignments necessary to investigate responses. DNA metabarcoding, however, need not be limited to macroinvertebrates, can be automated, and taxonomic assignments are associated with a certain level of accuracy from sequence variants to named taxonomic groups. The capacity to detect change using a scalable approach such as metabarcoding is critical for addressing challenges associated with biodiversity monitoring and ecological investigations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".