Comparison of three strategies for local bioassessments in streams using environmental DNA and RNA metabarcoding of macroinvertebrates

Research Article

Other versions:

(Verbatim name)

(Catalog Number)

Invalid DOI was provided, please try again

Article title
Abstract
Key words
Introduction
Methods
- Preparation of natural substrate exposures (NSEs)
- Sampling and experimental setup
- Lysis and extraction of DNA and RNA
- DNase digestion and reverse transcription
- PCR and sample preparation
- Data analysis
- Statistical analysis
Results
- Comparison of local signal in stream water eRNA versus eDNA samples
- Comparison of local signal in incubated water versus stream water samples
- Comparison of local signal in incubated water eRNA versus eDNA samples
- Comparison of multi-habitat sampling vs natural substrate exposure
Discussion
- Does eRNA metabarcoding improve the detection of local species? (hypothesis 1, strategy 1)
- Does incubation of locally collected samples improve the signal of local species in eDNA metabarcoding? (hypothesis 2a, strategies 2 and 3)
- Does eRNA metabarcoding of incubated water of locally collected samples further improve the signal of local species in comparison to eDNA metabarcoding? (hypothesis 2b, strategies 1, 2 and 3)
- Advantages of natural substrate exposures and multi-habitat sampling (hypothesis 3, strategies 2 and 3)
- Potential and possible obstacles for the application of the three strategies for biomonitoring
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Additional information
- Conflict of interest
- Ethical statement
- Use of AI
- Funding
- Author contributions
- Author ORCIDs
- Data availability
References
Supplementary materials

Subscribe to email alerts for current Article's categories