2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

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

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Water Res.
          Water research
          Elsevier BV
          1879-2448
          0043-1354
          July 01 2018
          : 138
          Affiliations
          [1 ] University of Duisburg-Essen, Aquatic Ecology, 45117 Essen, Germany. Electronic address: daniel.hering@uni-due.de.
          [2 ] AZTI, Marine Research Division, 20110 Pasaia, Spain.
          [3 ] School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK.
          [4 ] Association VigiLIFE, 17, rue du Lac Saint-André, Savoie Technolac - BP 274, 73375 Le Bourget-du-Lac Cedex, France and Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem Management, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria.
          [5 ] PCM, Provincial Centre of Environmental Research, Godshuizenlaan 95, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
          [6 ] INRA-UMR CARRTEL, 74200 Thonon les Bains, France.
          [7 ] NatureMetrics Ltd, Egham, TW20 9TY, UK.
          [8 ] Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, PO Box 7050, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
          [9 ] University of Hull, Evolutionary Biology Group, School of Environmental Sciences, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK.
          [10 ] University of Duisburg-Essen, Aquatic Ecosystem Research, 45117 Essen, Germany.
          [11 ] Finnish Environment Institute, Freshwater Centre, FI-40500 Jyväskylä, Finland.
          [12 ] Botanic Garden Meise, Nieuwelaan, 38, 1860 Meise, Belgium; Royal Museum for Central Africa, Leuvensesteenweg, 13, 3080 Tervuren, Belgium.
          [13 ] Agence Française pour la Biodiversité (AFB), 5 square Felix Nadar, 94300 Vincennes, France.
          [14 ] Forest Research Center, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisbon, Portugal.
          [15 ] Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, and Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK.
          [16 ] Bowburn Consultancy, 11 Monteigne Drive, Bowburn, Durham DH6 5QB, UK.
          Article
          S0043-1354(18)30183-0
          10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.003
          29602086
          4742d43e-6843-472c-890a-42c1d86365b4
          History

          Biological quality elements,eDNA,Transitional and coastal waters,Rivers,Meta-barcoding,Lakes

          Comments

          Comment on this article