Taxonomic accuracy and complementarity between bulk and eDNA metabarcoding provides an alternative to morphology for biological assessment of freshwater macroinvertebrates

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Determining 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.