Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorMúrria, Cesc
dc.contributor.authorWangensteen, Owen S.
dc.contributor.authorSomma, Simona
dc.contributor.authorVäisänen, Leif
dc.contributor.authorFortuño, Pau
dc.contributor.authorArnedo, Miquel A.
dc.contributor.authorPrat, Narcís
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-07T13:17:59Z
dc.date.available2024-10-07T13:17:59Z
dc.date.issued2024-05-16
dc.description.abstractDetermining biological status of freshwater ecosystems is critical for ensuring ecosystem health and maintaining associated services to such ecosystems. Freshwater macroinvertebrates respond predictably to environmental disturbances and are widely used in biomonitoring programs. However, many freshwater species are difficult to capture and sort from debris or substrate and morphological identification is challenging, especially larval stages, damaged specimens, or hyperdiverse groups such as Diptera. The advent of high throughput sequencing technologies has enhanced DNA barcoding tools to automatise species identification for whole communities, as metabarcoding is increasingly used to monitor biodiversity. However, recent comparisons have revealed little congruence between morphological and molecular-based identifications. Using broad range universal primers for DNA barcode marker cox1, we compare community composition captured between morphological and molecular-based approaches from different sources — tissue-based (bulk benthic and bulk drift samples) and environmental DNA (eDNA, filtered water) metabarcoding — for samples collected along a gradient of anthropogenic disturbances. For comparability, metabarcoding taxonomic assignments were filtered by taxa included in the standardised national biological metric IBMWP. At the family level, bulk benthic metabarcoding showed the highest congruence with morphology, and the most abundant taxa were captured by all techniques. Richness captured by morphology and bulk benthic metabarcoding decreased along the gradient, whereas richness recorded by eDNA remained constant and increased downstream when sequencing bulk drift. Estimates of biological metrics were higher using molecular than morphological identification. At species level, diversity captured by bulk benthic samples were higher than the other techniques. Importantly, bulk benthic and eDNA metabarcoding captured different and complementary portions of the community — benthic versus water column, respectively — and their combined use is recommended. While bulk benthic metabarcoding can likely replace morphology using similar benthic biological indices, water eDNA will require new metrics because this technique sequences a different portion of the community.en_US
dc.identifier.citationMúrria, Wangensteen, Somma, Väisänen, Fortuño, Arnedo, Prat. Taxonomic accuracy and complementarity between bulk and eDNA metabarcoding provides an alternative to morphology for biological assessment of freshwater macroinvertebrates. Science of the Total Environment. 2024;935en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2274798
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173243
dc.identifier.issn0048-9697
dc.identifier.issn1879-1026
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/35094
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.journalScience of the Total Environment
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2024 The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en_US
dc.titleTaxonomic accuracy and complementarity between bulk and eDNA metabarcoding provides an alternative to morphology for biological assessment of freshwater macroinvertebratesen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Med mindre det står noe annet, er denne innførselens lisens beskrevet som Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)