A performance evaluation of targeted eDNA and eDNA metabarcoding analyses for freshwater fishes

By J. Bylemans, D. Gleeson, R. Duncan, C. Hardy, Elise Furlan. Environmental DNA, 2019

119 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Read counts from environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding reflect fish abundance and biomass in drained ponds (2020, background): “Environmental DNA metabarcoding has the advantage of detecting elusive and rare species, resolving cryptic species and identifying novel taxa through a non-invasive sampling approach (Blackman et al. 2017; Grey et al. 2018; Bylemans et al. 2019).”
Reference databases, primer choice, and assay sensitivity for environmental metabarcoding: Lessons learnt from a re‐evaluation of an eDNA fish assessment in the Volga headwaters (2020, background): “Additionally, such a targeted approach has been shown to be more sensitive than metabarcoding (Bylemans et al., 2019; Harper et al., 2018) and is more cost effective when the target taxa involve only a few species (Tsuji et al., 2018).”
Environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool for assessing fish biomass: A review of approaches and future considerations for resource surveys (2021, methodology): “Species- specific assays were more frequently used than metabarcoding assays for quantifying eDNA, and recent research suggests that the former may be more effective in this regard for fish (Bylemans et al., 2019).”