Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Freshwater mollusc community screening - classical and eDNA monitoring methods to detect rare, indicator and invasive species

ABSTRACT: Freshwater mollusc community screening - Sweden

PROVIDER: PRJEB79231 | ENA |

REPOSITORIES: ENA

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
	ERR14716900_1.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR14716900_2.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR14717000_1.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR14717000_2.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR14717100_1.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz

Items per page:

1 - 5 of 1264

Similar Datasets

Methods ancient mollusc shell genomics

Project description:Advancing responsible genomic Analyses of ancient mollusc shells

| PRJEB71043 | ENA

mollusc metagenome

Project description:mollusc metagenome Transcriptome

| PRJNA388246 | ENA

mollusc metagenome

Project description:mollusc metagenome Transcriptome

| PRJNA388247 | ENA

mollusc metagenome

Project description:mollusc metagenome Metagenome

| PRJNA992254 | ENA

mollusc metagenome

Project description:mollusc metagenome Genome sequencing

| PRJNA1299769 | ENA

eDNA Metabarcoding Benchmarked towards Conventional Survey Methods in Amphibian Monitoring.

Project description:A keystone in protection work is accurate and thorough the monitoring of amphibian species, and the currently applied conventional survey methods are invasive, time-consuming, and dependent on expert knowledge. Research suggests that eDNA metabarcoding is a precise and cost-efficient method that could supplement the currently applied methods. The present study assessed the efficiency of conventional survey methods and eDNA metabarcoding in terms of species richness, the average number of detected species per site, the relative frequency of species occurrence, and the similarity of applied methods. The study found eDNA metabarcoding surveys to detect Lissotriton vulgaris (smooth newt), Triturus cristatus (great crested newt), Rana arvalis (moor frog), Rana temporaria (common frog), and Bufo bufo (common toad), as well as an average of 0.9 species per site, reflecting the species composition at the time of sampling in mid-July 2020. In addition to the species mentioned above, the conventional survey detected Epidalea calamita (natterjack toad) and an average of 1.7 species per site, reflecting the species composition at the time of sampling in early June 2020. The similarity between the methods applied in the present study was 27%, thus indicating a large number of unique observations of both eDNA metabarcoding and conventional surveys. The differences in detection can most likely be explained by the time of sampling, which was conducted a month apart. eDNA metabarcoding was efficient in detecting multiple amphibian species and produced unique observations that were not detected using conventional survey methods. Applying eDNA techniques as a supplement will most likely produce important knowledge on species distribution and presence, as well as enable more frequent monitoring due to cost efficiency and disturbance.

| S-EPMC8944553 | biostudies-literature

mollusc metagenome

Project description:Mollusc metagenome Raw sequence reads

| PRJNA389665 | ENA

mollusc metagenome

Project description:mollusc metagenome Raw sequence reads

| PRJNA817792 | ENA

mollusc metagenome

Project description:mollusc metagenome Raw sequence reads

| PRJNA663745 | ENA

mollusc metagenome

Project description:mollusc metagenome Targeted Locus (Loci)