Fig. 1: Characteristics of biodiversity monitoring.
From: eDNA offers opportunities for improved biodiversity monitoring within forest carbon markets
Comparison of taxonomic scope, geographic distribution, and methodological rigor of biodiversity monitoring within forest carbon (FC) projects (n = 129) and terrestrial eDNA studies (n = 134). In the top row, icons represent taxonomic groups monitored: plants, mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, invertebrates, fungi, prokaryotes, and protists (icon size is proportional to the % of FC projects or eDNA studies). Fish were detected incidentally in some terrestrial eDNA studies. The maps in the middle row show locations of FC projects (left) and eDNA studies (right) included in this analysis. In the bottom row, the % of FC projects or eDNA studies meeting four different criteria of methodological rigor and transparency are shown. The icons in the bottom row represent the different biodiversity survey methods used, shown in decreasing order of commonness from top to bottom: formal visual observation surveys, incidental observations, camera traps, conventional traps, bioacoustics, and eDNA-based methods. Organism images from www.phylopic.org are used under Creative Commons licenses (see section “Acknowledgements”).
