Comparing local‐ and regional‐scale estimations of the diversity of stream fish using eDNA metabarcoding and conventional observation methods

98 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.

Sedimentary eDNA provides different information on timescale and fish species composition compared with aqueous eDNA (2020, methodology): “…metabarcoding technique has already been applied in various environments, for example, marine (Port et al., 2016; Yamamoto et al., 2017), lotic (Nakagawa et al., 2018; Shaw et al., 2016), and lentic freshwater environments (Hänfling et al., 2016; Thomsen, Kielgast, Iversen, Wiuf, et al., 2012).”
MiFish metabarcoding: a high-throughput approach for simultaneous detection of multiple fish species from environmental DNA and other samples (2020, unknown): “reinii) showing habitat segregation (Nakagawa et al. 2018).”
Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: A systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA (2019, background): “be an extremely promising avenue in freshwater biodiversity studies with the capability to collect monumental amounts of data in short periods of time without disrupting ecosystems (Shaw et al., 2016; Nakagawa et al., 2018).”