A comparative analysis of metabarcoding and morphology-based identification of benthic communities across different regional seas
Microsoft Word 2007
Microsoft Excel 2007
AuthorsCahill, Abigail E.
Pearman, John K.
Somerfield, Paul J.
Uyarra, Maria C.
KAUST DepartmentRed Sea Research Center (RSRC)
Online Publication Date2018-08-13
Print Publication Date2018-09
Permanent link to this recordhttp://hdl.handle.net/10754/628464
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractIn a world of declining biodiversity, monitoring is becoming crucial. Molecular methods, such as metabarcoding, have the potential to rapidly expand our knowledge of biodiversity, supporting assessment, management, and conservation. In the marine environment, where hard substrata are more difficult to access than soft bottoms for quantitative ecological studies, Artificial Substrate Units (ASUs) allow for standardized sampling. We deployed ASUs within five regional seas (Baltic Sea, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, and Red Sea) for 12–26 months to measure the diversity and community composition of macroinvertebrates. We identified invertebrates using a traditional approach based on morphological characters, and by metabarcoding of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI) gene. We compared community composition and diversity metrics obtained using the two methods. Diversity was significantly correlated between data types. Metabarcoding of ASUs allowed for robust comparisons of community composition and diversity, but not all groups were successfully sequenced. All locations were significantly different in taxonomic composition as measured with both kinds of data. We recovered previously known regional biogeographical patterns in both datasets (e.g., low species diversity in the Black and Baltic Seas, affinity between the Bay of Biscay and the Mediterranean). We conclude that the two approaches provide complementary information and that metabarcoding shows great promise for marine monitoring. However, until its pitfalls are addressed, the use of metabarcoding in monitoring of rocky benthic assemblages should be used in addition to classical approaches rather than instead of them.
CitationCahill AE, Pearman JK, Borja A, Carugati L, Carvalho S, et al. (2018) A comparative analysis of metabarcoding and morphology-based identification of benthic communities across different regional seas. Ecology and Evolution. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4283.
SponsorsThis manuscript is a result of the DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) project, funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, “The Ocean of Tomorrow” Theme (grant agreement no. 308392), www.devotes-project.eu. S Carvalho and JK Pearman were funded through the Saudi Aramco—KAUST Center for Marine Environmental Observations (SAKMEO). MC Uyarra was partially funded through the Spanish programme for Talent and Employability in R+D+I “Torres Quevedo.” Funding for publication was provided to AEC by Albion College. We thank the ICM-Brain and Spine Institute in Paris, France (especially Y Marie and D Bouteiller) for sequencing, U Langner for Figure 1, and everyone who helped with the deployment and recovery of the ASUs and initial laboratory processing. We thank the editor and reviewers for their revisions, which improved earlier versions of the manuscript.
JournalEcology and Evolution
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.