Comparison of fish detections, community diversity, and relative abundance using environmental DNA metabarcoding and traditional gears

By N. Sard, S. Herbst, L. Nathan, Genelle Uhrig, Jeannette Kanefsky, John D. Robinson, K. Scribner. Environmental DNA, 2019

92 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Molecular Biology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a786093e5f5a0116e0ef672480541c10095c128f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. Elise Furlan
2. Mehrdad Hajibabaei
3. Gregory A. C. Singer
4. M. Broadhurst
5. J. DiBattista
6. Michael W. Davis

In Molecular Biology

1. Elise Furlan
2. Mehrdad Hajibabaei
3. Gregory A. C. Singer
4. J. DiBattista
5. Robert H. Hanner
6. Paul D. N. Hebert

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Elise Furlan
2. M. Broadhurst
3. Michael W. Davis

Citations in the corpus

• Environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool for assessing fish biomass: A review of approaches and future considerations for resource surveys (2021, background): “…detection rates based on the relative read counts as a proxy for abundance estimates Sampling effort, species detection rate (+) and relative abundance (+) Sard et al. (2019) USAE Chinook salmonSp Difference between eDNA concentrations and beach seining for estimating abundance/biomass 1.0 L…”
• Metabarcoding From Microbes to Mammals: Comprehensive Bioassessment on a Global Scale (2020, background): “These measures are currently used in many monitoring programs and quantification approaches, though recent studies have suggested that presence-absence data obtained from DNA metabarcoding can provide similar trends in ecological assessment compared to measures that incorporate abundance (Aylagas et”