English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Monitoring biodiversity is essential to understand the impacts of human activities and for effective management of ecosystems. Thereby, biodiversity can be assessed through direct collection of targeted organisms, through indirect evidence of their presence (e.g. signs, environmental DNA, camera trap, etc.), or through extrapolations from species distribution and species richness models. Differences in approaches used in biodiversity assessment, however, may come with individual challenges and hinder cross-study comparability. In the context of rapidly developing techniques, we compared three different approaches in order to better understand assessments of aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity. Specifically, we compared the community composition and species richness of three orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies, hereafter EPT) obtained via  eDNA  metabarcoding and via traditional  in situ  kicknet sampling to catchment-level based predictions of a species richness model. We used kicknet data from 24 sites in Switzerland and compared taxonomic lists to those obtained using  eDNA  amplified with two different primer sets. Richness detected by these methods was compared to the independent predictions made by a statistical species richness model, that is, a generalized linear model using landscape-level features to estimate EPT diversity. Despite the ability of  eDNA  to consistently detect some EPT species found by traditional sampling, we found important discrepancies in community composition between the kicknet and  eDNA  approaches, particularly at a local scale. We found the EPT-specific primer set fwhF2/EPTDr2n, detected a greater number of targeted EPT species compared to the more general primer set mlCOIintF/HCO2198. Moreover, we found that the species richness measured by  eDNA  from either primer set was poorly correlated to the richness measured by kicknet sampling (Pearson correlation = 0.27) and that the richness estimated by  eDNA  and kicknet were poorly correlated with the prediction of the species richness model (Pearson correlation = 0.30 and 0.44, respectively). The weak relationships between the traditional kicknet sampling and  eDNA  with this model indicates inherent limitations in upscaling species richness estimates, and possibly a limited ability of the model to meet real world expectations. It is also possible that the number of replicates was not sufficient to detect ambiguous correlations. Future challenges include improving the accuracy and sensitivity of each approach individually, yet also acknowledging their respective limitations, in order to best meet stakeholder demands and address the biodiversity crisis we are facing.

﻿A triad of kicknet sampling, eDNA metabarcoding, and predictive modeling to assess richness of mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies in rivers

A triad of kicknet sampling, eDNA metabarcoding, and predictive modeling to assess richness of mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies in rivers