Why We Need Sustainable Networks Bridging Countries, Disciplines, Cultures and Generations for Aquatic Biomonitoring 2.0: A Perspective Derived From the DNAqua-Net COST Action

Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?

Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems.

Multi-marker eDNA metabarcoding survey to assess the environmental impact of three offshore gas platforms in the North Adriatic Sea (Italy)

The environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding represents a new promising tool for biomonitoring and environmental impact assessment. One of the main advantages of eDNA metabarcoding, compared to the traditional morphotaxonomy-based methods, is to provide a more holistic biodiversity information that includes inconspicuous morphologically non-identifiable taxa. Here, we use eDNA metabarcoding to survey marine biodiversity in the vicinity of the three offshore gas platforms in North Adriatic Sea (Italy). We isolated eDNA from 576 water and sediment samples collected at 32 sampling sites situated along four axes at increasing distances from the gas platforms. We obtained about 46 million eDNA sequences for 5 markers from nuclear 18S V1V2, 18S V4, 18S 37F and mitochondrial 16S and COI genes that cover a wide diversity of benthic and planktonic eukaryotes. Our results showed some impact of platform activities on benthic and pelagic communities at very close distance (<50 m), while communities for intermediate (125 m, 250 m, 500 m) and reference (1000 m, 2000 m) sites did not show any particular biodiversity changes that could be related to platforms activities. The most significant community change along the distance gradient was obtained with the 18S V1V2 marker targeting benthic eukaryotes, even though other markers showed similar trends, but to a lesser extent. These results were congruent with the AMBI index inferred from the eDNA sequences assigned to benthic macrofauna. We finally explored the relation between various physicochemical parameters, including hydrocarbons, on benthic community in the case of one of the platforms. Our results showed that these communities were not significantly impacted by most of hydrocarbons, but rather by macro-elements and sediment texture.

DNA metabarcoding from sample fixative as a quick and voucher-preserving biodiversity assessment method

Metabarcoding is a powerful, increasingly popular tool for biodiversity assessment, but it still suffers from some drawbacks (specimen destruction, separation, and size sorting). In the present study, we tested a non-destructive protocol that excludes any sample sorting, where the ethanol used for sample preserving is filtered and DNA is extracted from the filter for subsequent DNA metabarcoding. When tested on macroinvertebrate mock communities, the method was widely successful but was unable to reliably detect mollusc taxa. Three different protocols (no treatment, shaking, and freezing) were successfully applied to increase DNA release to the fixative. The protocols resulted in similar success in taxa detection (6.8–7 taxa) but differences in read numbers assigned to taxa of interest (33.8%–93.7%). In comparison to conventional bulk sample metabarcoding of environmental samples, taxa with pronounced exoskeleton and small-bodied taxa were especially underrepresented in ethanol samples. For EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) taxa, which are important for determining stream ecological status, the methods detected 46 OTUs in common, with only 4 unique to the ethanol samples and 10 to the bulk samples. These results indicate that fixative-based metabarcoding is a non-destructive, time-saving alternative for biodiversity assessments focussing on taxa used for ecological status determination. However, for a comprehensive assessment on total invertebrate biodiversity, the method may not be sufficient, and conventional bulk sample metabarcoding should be applied.

High-throughput environmental DNA analysis informs a biological assessment of an urban stream

There is growing interest in the use of DNA barcoding and metabarcoding approaches to aid biological assessments and monitoring of waterbodies. While biodiversity measured by morphology and by DNA often has been found correlated, few studies have compared DNA data to established measures of impairment such as multimetric pollution tolerance indices used by many bioassessment programs. We incorporated environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of seston into a rigorous watershed-scale biological assessment of an urban stream to examine the extent to which eDNA richness and diversity patterns were correlated with multimetric indices and ecological impairment status designations. We also evaluated different filtering approaches and taxonomic classifications to identify best practices for environmental assessments. Seston eDNA revealed a wide diversity of eukaryotic taxa but was dominated by diatoms (36%). Differentiation among sites in alpha and beta diversity was greater when operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were classified taxonomically, but coarse resolution taxonomy (kingdom) was more informative than finer resolution taxonomy (family, genus). Correlations of DNA richness and diversity with multimetric indices for fish and macroinvertebrates were generally weak, possibly because Metazoa were not highly represented in our DNA dataset. Nonetheless, sites could be differentiated based on ecological impairment status, with more impaired sites having lower eDNA diversity as measured by the Shannon index, but higher taxonomic richness. Significant environmental drivers of community structure, as inferred from constrained ordination analyses, differed among kingdoms within the eDNA dataset, as well as from fish and macrobenthos, suggesting that eDNA provides novel environmental information. These results suggest that even a simple seston eDNA filtering protocol can provide biodiversity information of value to stream bioassessment programs. The approach bears further investigation as a potentially useful rapid assessment protocol to supplement more intensive field sampling efforts.

The future of biotic indices in the ecogenomic era: Integrating (e)DNA metabarcoding in biological assessment of aquatic ecosystems

The bioassessment of aquatic ecosystems is currently based on various biotic indices that use the occurrence and/or abundance of selected taxonomic groups to define ecological status. These conventional indices have some limitations, often related to difficulties in morphological identification of bioindicator taxa. Recent development of DNA barcoding and metabarcoding could potentially alleviate some of these limitations, by using DNA sequences instead of morphology to identify organisms and to characterize a given ecosystem. In this paper, we review the structure of conventional biotic indices, and we present the results of pilot metabarcoding studies using environmental DNA to infer biotic indices. We discuss the main advantages and pitfalls of metabarcoding approaches to assess parameters such as richness, abundance, taxonomic composition and species ecological values, to be used for calculation of biotic indices. We present some future developments to fully exploit the potential of metabarcoding data and improve the accuracy and precision of their analysis. We also propose some recommendations for the future integration of DNA metabarcoding to routine biomonitoring programs.

Choice of DNA extraction method affects DNA metabarcoding of unsorted invertebrate bulk samples

Characterisation of freshwater benthic biodiversity using DNA metabarcoding may allow more cost-effective environmental assessments than the current morphological-based assessment methods. DNA metabarcoding methods where sorting or pre-sorting of samples are avoided altogether are especially interesting, since the time between sampling and taxonomic identification is reduced. Due to the presence of non-target material like plants and sediments in crude samples, DNA extraction protocols become important for maximising DNA recovery and sample replicability. We sampled freshwater invertebrates from six river and lake sites and extracted DNA from homogenised bulk samples in quadruplicate subsamples, using a published method and two commercially available kits: HotSHOT approach, Qiagen DNeasy Blood &amp; Tissue Kit and Qiagen DNeasy PowerPlant Pro Kit. The performance of the selected extraction methods was evaluated by measuring DNA yield and applying DNA metabarcoding to see if the choice of DNA extraction method affects DNA yield and metazoan diversity results. The PowerPlant Kit extractions resulted in the highest DNA yield and a strong significant correlation between sample weight and DNA yield, while the DNA yields of the Blood &amp; Tissue Kit and HotSHOT method did not correlate with the sample weights. Metazoan diversity measures were more repeatable in samples extracted with the PowerPlant Kit compared to those extracted with the HotSHOT method or the Blood &amp; Tissue Kit. Subsampling using Blood &amp; Tissue Kit and HotSHOT extraction failed to describe the same community in the lake samples. Our study exemplifies that the choice of DNA extraction protocol influences the DNA yield as well as the subsequent community analysis. Based on our results, low specimen abundance samples will likely provide more stable results if specimens are sorted prior to DNA extraction and DNA metabarcoding, but the repeatability of the DNA extraction and DNA metabarcoding results was close to ideal in high specimen abundance samples.

A DNA metabarcoding protocol for hyporheic freshwater meiofauna: Evaluating highly degenerate COI primers and replication strategy

The hyporheic zone, i.e. the ecotone between surface water and the groundwater, is a rarely studied freshwater ecosystem. Hyporheic taxa are often meiofaunal (&lt;1 mm) in size and difficult to identify based on morphology. Metabarcoding approaches are promising for the study of these environments and taxa, but it is yet unclear if commonly applied metabarcoding primers and replication strategies can be used. In this study, we took sediment cores from two near natural upstream (NNU) and two ecologically improved downstream (EID) sites in the Boye catchment (Emscher River, Germany), metabarcoding their meiofaunal communities. We evaluated the usability of a commonly used, highly degenerate COI primer pair (BF2/BR2) and tested how sequencing three PCR replicates per sample and removing MOTUs present in only one out of three replicates impacts the inferred community composition. A total of 22,514 MOTUs were detected, of which only 263 were identified as Metazoa. Our results highlight the gaps in reference databases for meiofaunal taxa and the potential problems of using highly degenerate primers for studying samples containing a high number of non-metazoan taxa. Alpha diversity was higher in EID sites and showed higher community similarity when compared to NNU sites. Beta diversity analyses showed that removing MOTUs detected in only one out of three replicates per site greatly increased community similarity in samples. Sequencing three sample replicates and removing rare MOTUs is seen as a good compromise between retaining too many false-positives and introducing too many false-negatives. We conclude that metabarcoding hyporheic communities using highly degenerate COI primers can provide valuable first insights into the diversity of these ecosystems and highlight some potential application scenarios.

Implementation options for DNA-based identification into ecological status assessment under the European Water Framework Directive

Assessment of ecological status for the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) is based on "Biological Quality Elements" (BQEs), namely phytoplankton, benthic flora, benthic invertebrates and fish. Morphological identification of these organisms is a time-consuming and expensive procedure. Here, we assess the options for complementing and, perhaps, replacing morphological identification with procedures using eDNA, metabarcoding or similar approaches. We rate the applicability of DNA-based identification for the individual BQEs and water categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters) against eleven criteria, summarised under the headlines representativeness (for example suitability of current sampling methods for DNA-based identification, errors from DNA-based species detection), sensitivity (for example capability to detect sensitive taxa, unassigned reads), precision of DNA-based identification (knowledge about uncertainty), comparability with conventional approaches (for example sensitivity of metrics to differences in DNA-based identification), cost effectiveness and environmental impact. Overall, suitability of DNA-based identification is particularly high for fish, as eDNA is a well-suited sampling approach which can replace expensive and potentially harmful methods such as gill-netting, trawling or electrofishing. Furthermore, there are attempts to replace absolute by relative abundance in metric calculations. For invertebrates and phytobenthos, the main challenges include the modification of indices and completing barcode libraries. For phytoplankton, the barcode libraries are even more problematic, due to the high taxonomic diversity in plankton samples. If current assessment concepts are kept, DNA-based identification is least appropriate for macrophytes (rivers, lakes) and angiosperms/macroalgae (transitional and coastal waters), which are surveyed rather than sampled. We discuss general implications of implementing DNA-based identification into standard ecological assessment, in particular considering any adaptations to the WFD that may be required to facilitate the transition to molecular data.