MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366590770 · doi:10.1002/edn3.423

Paired environmental <scp>DNA</scp> and dive surveys provide distinct but complementary snapshots of marine biodiversity in a temperate fjord

2023· article· en· W4366590770 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kristin Meagher Robinson, C. R. M. Prentice, Rute B. G. Clemente‐Carvalho, Kyle Wm. Hall, Zachary L. Monteith, Evan Morien, Angeleen M. Olson, Ondine Pontier, Margot Hessing‐Lewis, Colleen T. E. Kellogg, Matthew A. Lemay

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental DNA · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsTula Foundation
FundersHakai InstituteTula Foundation
KeywordsEnvironmental DNAFjordBenthic zoneBiodiversityInvertebrateMarine invertebratesEcologyBiologyMarine ecosystemFisheryHabitatEcosystemOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Marine biodiversity is a key indicator of ecosystem health and can be assessed using a variety of methods, including environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling. However, the ecology of eDNA in physically dynamic nearshore environments remains uncertain, particularly with regards to how eDNA stratifies with depth. Here, we paired eDNA sampling with dive surveys at six sites in Knight Inlet, British Columbia, Canada. eDNA samples were collected from the surface, midwater column and bottom (8–25 m depth) at each site, while dive surveys focused on the bottom (benthic) habitat. Amplicon sequencing using the mitochondrial 12S rRNA gene (targeting fish) and the COI gene (targeting marine invertebrates and algae) resolved significant differences in community composition in surface waters compared with midwater and bottom. Differences by depth were greater than differences across sites, with surface waters dominated by salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and rotifer DNA, and midwater and bottom samples largely dominated by Pacific herring, copepods, and mussels. eDNA samples collected at the surface, therefore, may not accurately capture benthic communities, particularly in systems with high levels of freshwater input such as coastal temperate fjords. Over small spatial scales, particularly in systems with strong stratification, adding samples from different depths may be more effective at maximizing inferred diversity rather than sampling more sites. In general, there was low overlap in species detection between dive and eDNA surveys (less than 10% for each taxonomic group – fish, invertebrates, and algae). However, we observed clear strengths for each method – dive surveys provided better taxonomic resolution, while eDNA resolved greater total diversity. These results suggest that the two survey methods can be used in tandem to provide distinct and complementary snapshots of marine biodiversity in the nearshore 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)0.000
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 score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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