MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392350789 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111830

Comparison of environmental DNA and SCUBA diving methods to survey keystone rockfish species on the Central Coast of British Columbia, Canada

2024· article· en· W4392350789 on OpenAlex
Neha Acharya‐Patel, Emma T. Groenwold, Matthew A. Lemay, Rute B. G. Clemente‐Carvalho, Evan Morien, Sarah E. Dudas, Emily Rubidge, Cecilia L. Yang, Lauren Coombe, René L. Warren, Alejandro Frid, İnanç Birol, Caren C. Helbing

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreBC Cancer AgencyFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHakai InstituteExplorers ClubGenome CanadaMitacsGénome QuébecGenome British Columbia
KeywordsRockfishScuba divingFisheryGeographyEcologyOceanographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>ZoologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rocky reefs of British Columbia’s (BC) coast are a productive ecosystem, home to 38 rockfish species (Genus: Sebastes) that are culturally and economically important. Quantitatively assessing rockfish populations is vital to support conservation and stock assessment needs. Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) diving surveys are a commonly used monitoring method in BC. However, this resource-intensive approach is challenging, particularly for cryptic or deeper species. Herein, we compared environmental DNA (eDNA) detection methods with SCUBA diving surveys to capture overall rockfish biodiversity. We employed two eDNA methods: 1) a targeted quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) approach to monitor species of particular importance to First Nations collaborators and decision makers, and 2) a metabarcoding approach for assessing community composition using the previously published MiSebastes assay. Both approaches are confounded by the little DNA sequence divergence among species and high sequence variation within species. Overcoming these challenges using a whole mitochondrial approach with the mtGrasp and unikseq pipelines, we generated highly useful eDNA tools. We found that eDNA methods were highly comparable to dive surveys, as both methods indicated a similar ecological reality, including species detections and distributions. Though there are certain species that cannot be distinguished by the MiSebastes assay, eDNA metabarcoding still detected more rockfish species overall. Both eDNA methods show potential for use alongside conventional methods for scalable incorporation into community-based monitoring programs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.232 · 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