» Articles » PMID: 34547039

Environmental DNA Gives Comparable Results to Morphology-based Indices of Macroinvertebrates in a Large-scale Ecological Assessment

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2021 Sep 21
PMID 34547039
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Anthropogenic activities are changing the state of ecosystems worldwide, affecting community composition and often resulting in loss of biodiversity. Rivers are among the most impacted ecosystems. Recording their current state with regular biomonitoring is important to assess the future trajectory of biodiversity. Traditional monitoring methods for ecological assessments are costly and time-intensive. Here, we compared monitoring of macroinvertebrates based on environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling with monitoring based on traditional kick-net sampling to assess biodiversity patterns at 92 river sites covering all major Swiss river catchments. From the kick-net community data, a biotic index (IBCH) based on 145 indicator taxa had been established. The index was matched by the taxonomically annotated eDNA data by using a machine learning approach. Our comparison of diversity patterns only uses the zero-radius Operational Taxonomic Units assigned to the indicator taxa. Overall, we found a strong congruence between both methods for the assessment of the total indicator community composition (gamma diversity). However, when assessing biodiversity at the site level (alpha diversity), the methods were less consistent and gave complementary data on composition. Specifically, environmental DNA retrieved significantly fewer indicator taxa per site than the kick-net approach. Importantly, however, the subsequent ecological classification of rivers based on the detected indicators resulted in similar biotic index scores for the kick-net and the eDNA data that was classified using a random forest approach. The majority of the predictions (72%) from the random forest classification resulted in the same river status categories as the kick-net approach. Thus, environmental DNA validly detected indicator communities and, combined with machine learning, provided reliable classifications of the ecological state of rivers. Overall, while environmental DNA gives complementary data on the macroinvertebrate community composition compared to the kick-net approach, the subsequently calculated indices for the ecological classification of river sites are nevertheless directly comparable and consistent.

Citing Articles

Is it worth the extra mile? Comparing environmental DNA and RNA metabarcoding for vertebrate and invertebrate biodiversity surveys in a lowland stream.

Macher T, Arle J, Beermann A, Frank L, Hupalo K, Koschorreck J PeerJ. 2024; 12:e18016.

PMID: 39465159 PMC: 11512801. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18016.


Measuring the state of aquatic environments using eDNA-upscaling spatial resolution of biotic indices.

Blackman R, Carraro L, Keck F, Altermatt F Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2024; 379(1904):20230121.

PMID: 38705183 PMC: 11070250. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2023.0121.


Current Status of Omics in Biological Quality Elements for Freshwater Biomonitoring.

Machuca-Sepulveda J, Miranda J, Lefin N, Pedroso A, Beltran J, Farias J Biology (Basel). 2023; 12(7).

PMID: 37508354 PMC: 10376755. DOI: 10.3390/biology12070923.


Assessing arthropod diversity metrics derived from stream environmental DNA: spatiotemporal variation and paired comparisons with manual sampling.

Aunins A, Mueller S, Fike J, Cornman R PeerJ. 2023; 11:e15163.

PMID: 37020852 PMC: 10069422. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15163.

References
1.
Cordier T, Forster D, Dufresne Y, Martins C, Stoeck T, Pawlowski J . Supervised machine learning outperforms taxonomy-based environmental DNA metabarcoding applied to biomonitoring. Mol Ecol Resour. 2018; 18(6):1381-1391. DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.12926. View

2.
Meyer A, Boyer F, Valentini A, Bonin A, Ficetola G, Beisel J . Morphological vs. DNA metabarcoding approaches for the evaluation of stream ecological status with benthic invertebrates: Testing different combinations of markers and strategies of data filtering. Mol Ecol. 2020; 30(13):3203-3220. DOI: 10.1111/mec.15723. View

3.
Dudgeon D . Multiple threats imperil freshwater biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Curr Biol. 2019; 29(19):R960-R967. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.08.002. View

4.
Pont D, Valentini A, Rocle M, Maire A, Delaigue O, Jean P . The future of fish-based ecological assessment of European rivers: from traditional EU Water Framework Directive compliant methods to eDNA metabarcoding-based approaches. J Fish Biol. 2019; 98(2):354-366. PMC: 7891642. DOI: 10.1111/jfb.14176. View

5.
McMurdie P, Holmes S . phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS One. 2013; 8(4):e61217. PMC: 3632530. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061217. View