A taxonomy-free diatom eDNA-based technique for assessing lake trophic level using lake sediments

What is Fragilaria koensabbei and does it matter what it is called? (Meta)barcoding and the science of taxonomy

Commentary is provided on the use of barcoding and metabarcoding in diatom studies and its broader relevance to the principles of taxonomy. The claims that taxonomy, however it is performed, is time-consuming and that it requires extensive expertise, due to a constantly evolving taxonomy, are questioned as good, even useful, criteria by which to judge a science.

The importance of integrating phycological research, teaching, outreach, and engagement in a changing world

The ecological, evolutionary, economic, and cultural importance of algae necessitates a continued integration of phycological research, education, outreach, and engagement. Here, we comment on several topics discussed during a networking workshop-Algae and the Environment-that brought together phycological researchers from a variety of institutions and career stages. We share some of our perspectives on the state of phycology by examining gaps in teaching and research. We identify action areas where we urge the phycological community to prepare itself to embrace the rapidly changing world. We emphasize the need for more trained taxonomists as well as integration with molecular techniques, which may be expensive and complicated but are important. An essential benefit of these integrative studies is the creation of high-quality algal reference barcoding libraries augmented with morphological, physiological, and ecological data that are important for studies of systematics and crucial for the accuracy of the metabarcoding bioassessment. We highlight different teaching approaches for engaging undergraduate students in algal studies and the importance of algal field courses, forays, and professional phycological societies in supporting the algal training of students, professionals, and citizen scientists.

Assessing the relevance of DNA metabarcoding compared to morphological identification for lake phytoplankton monitoring

Phytoplankton is a key biological group used to assess the ecological status of lakes. The classical monitoring approach relies on microscopic identification and counting of phytoplankton species, which is time-consuming and requires high taxonomic expertise. High-throughput sequencing, combined with metabarcoding, has recently demonstrated its potential as an alternative approach for plankton surveys. Several studies have confirmed the relevance of the diatom metabarcoding approach to calculate biotic indices based on species ecology. However, phytoplankton communities have not yet benefited from such validation. Here, by comparing the results obtained with the two methods (molecular and microscopic counting), we evaluated the relevance of metabarcoding approach for phytoplankton monitoring by considering different metrics: alpha diversity, taxonomic composition, community structure and a phytoplankton biotic index used to assess the trophic level of lakes. For this purpose, 55 samples were collected in four large alpine lakes (Aiguebelette, Annecy, Bourget, Geneva) during the year 2021. For each sample, a metabarcoding analysis based on two genetic markers (16S and 23S rRNA) was performed, in addition to the microscopic count. Regarding the trophic level of lakes, significant differences were found between index values obtained with the two approaches. The main hypothesis to explain these differences comes from the incompleteness, particularly at the species level, of the barcode reference library for the two genetic markers. It is therefore necessary to complete reference libraries for using such species-based biotic indices with metabarcoding data. Besides this, species richness and diversity were higher in the molecular inventories than in the microscopic ones. Moreover, despite differences in taxonomic composition of the floristic lists obtained by the two approaches, their community structures were similar. These results support the possibility of using metabarcoding for phytoplankton monitoring but in a different way. We suggest exploring alternative approaches to index development, such as a taxonomy-free approach.