A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.
Comment on O’Donnell et al. (2016)
This is well designed study and we would like to congratulate the authors to this data set and its excellent analysis. However, we feel that the authors have made an important omission in the discussion.
Given that the main focus of this paper is to explore the spatial distribution of community eDNA we feel that the authors should consider the results of our study on lake fish communities (Hänfling et al. 2016). In our paper we have used extensive spatial sampling of three transects across our main study lake with a total of 66 individual samples and to our knowledge there is no other data set on macrobial eDNA metabarcoding with a comparable extent of explicit sampling. Our paper confirms that the spatial distribution of individual species reflects their abundance but also shows that the pattern of distribution is not random and ecologically meaningful. Although there might be important differences between freshwater and marine habitats we feel that the results from our study are extremely relevant here and should not be omitted especially when claiming novelty of discussion point 2.
Bernd Hänfling, Lori Lawson Handley, Dan Read and Ian Winfield
Hänfling B, Lawson Handley L, Read DS, Hahn C, Li J, Nichols P, Blackman RC, Oliver A, Winfield IJ (2016) Environmental DNA metabarcoding of lake fish communities reflects long-term data from established survey methods. Molecular Ecology 25, 3101-3119.
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests. If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on. You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.
Usage since published - updated daily