Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods are increasingly used to assess marine pollution, offering a promising tool for ecosystem monitoring. However, these approaches still require validation against traditional techniques, such as sediment fauna (macrobenthos) sampling using a van Veen grab to assess the effects of marine pollutants on the benthic assemblage. Using a suite of environmental and pollutant parameters sampled across southeastern Australia, we investigated the sensitivity of three metabarcoding assays (16S rRNA, 18S rRNA, and mitochondrial COI) versus traditional but labour-intensive macrobenthos sampling for detecting potential impacts of pollutants. Both eDNA metabarcoding and macrobenthos sampling detected pollutant-associated impacts, with eDNA more sensitive to heavy metals, and macrobenthos more responsive to organic pollutants.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.118581 | DOI Listing |