FIGURE 4 in Evaluating the feasibility of using plant-specific metabarcoding to assess forest types from soil eDNA
Fuente:
Zenodo
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866901694947786752 |
|---|---|
| author | Ariza, Maria Engelstad, Mari Lieungh, Eva Laux, Marcele Ready, Jonathan Mauvisseau, Quentin Halvorsen, Rune de Boer, Hugo J. |
| author_facet | Ariza, Maria Engelstad, Mari Lieungh, Eva Laux, Marcele Ready, Jonathan Mauvisseau, Quentin Halvorsen, Rune de Boer, Hugo J. |
| contents | FIGURE 4 Percentage taxon match between soil eDNA sites and theoretical compositions of Nature in Norway (NiN) forest types. For comparison purposes, soil sampling sites (y axis) are labelled according to forest types (x axis) reported for each location in Eriksen et al. (2019) and Lieungh (2022). The percentage taxon match is calculated as twice the number of identical names in both taxon lists divided by the sum of total taxa in each list. Numbers of soil samples vary across forest types. Forest types: C1, calcium-poor submesic forest; C2, intermediately calcium-rich submesic forest; C5 calcium-poor submesic to subxeric forest; C6 intermediately calcium-rich submesic to subxeric forest; C9 calcium-poor subxeric forest; C13 calcium-poor xeric forest. |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_15864738 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | FIGURE 4 in Evaluating the feasibility of using plant-specific metabarcoding to assess forest types from soil eDNA Ariza, Maria Engelstad, Mari Lieungh, Eva Laux, Marcele Ready, Jonathan Mauvisseau, Quentin Halvorsen, Rune de Boer, Hugo J. Biodiversity Taxonomy FIGURE 4 Percentage taxon match between soil eDNA sites and theoretical compositions of Nature in Norway (NiN) forest types. For comparison purposes, soil sampling sites (y axis) are labelled according to forest types (x axis) reported for each location in Eriksen et al. (2019) and Lieungh (2022). The percentage taxon match is calculated as twice the number of identical names in both taxon lists divided by the sum of total taxa in each list. Numbers of soil samples vary across forest types. Forest types: C1, calcium-poor submesic forest; C2, intermediately calcium-rich submesic forest; C5 calcium-poor submesic to subxeric forest; C6 intermediately calcium-rich submesic to subxeric forest; C9 calcium-poor subxeric forest; C13 calcium-poor xeric forest. |
| title | FIGURE 4 in Evaluating the feasibility of using plant-specific metabarcoding to assess forest types from soil eDNA |
| topic | Biodiversity Taxonomy |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15864738 |