Benoit Penel, Christine N. Meynard, Laure Benoit, Axel Boudonne, Anne-Laure Clamens, Laurent Soldati, Alain Migeon, Marie-Pierre Chapuis, Sylvain Piry, Gael Kergoat, Julien Haran
{"title":"The best of two worlds: toward large-scale monitoring of biodiversity combining COI metabarcoding and optimized parataxonomic validation","authors":"Benoit Penel, Christine N. Meynard, Laure Benoit, Axel Boudonne, Anne-Laure Clamens, Laurent Soldati, Alain Migeon, Marie-Pierre Chapuis, Sylvain Piry, Gael Kergoat, Julien Haran","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a context of unprecedented insect decline, it is critical to have reliable monitoring tools to measure species diversity and their dynamic at large-scales. High-throughput DNA-based identification methods, and particularly metabarcoding, were proposed as an effective way to reach this aim. However, these identification methods are subject to multiple technical limitations, resulting in unavoidable false-positive and false-negative species detection. Moreover, metabarcoding does not allow a reliable estimation of species abundance in a given sample, which is key to document and detect population declines or range shifts at large scales. To overcome these obstacles, we propose here a human-assisted molecular identification (HAMI) approach, a framework based on a combination of metabarcoding and image-based parataxonomic validation of outputs and recording of abundance. We assessed the advantages of using HAMI over the exclusive use of a metabarcoding approach by examining 492 mixed beetle samples from a biodiversity monitoring initiative conducted throughout France. On average, 23% of the species are missed when relying exclusively on metabarcoding, this percent being consistently higher in species-rich samples. Importantly, on average, 20% of the species identified by molecular-only approaches correspond to false positives linked to cross-sample contaminations or mis-identified barcode sequences in databases. The combination of molecular methodologies and parataxonomic validation in HAMI significantly reduces the intrinsic biases of metabarcoding and recovers reliable abundance data. This approach also enables users to engage in a virtuous circle of database improvement through the identification of specimens associated with missing or incorrectly assigned barcodes. As such, HAMI fills an important gap in the toolbox available for fast and reliable biodiversity monitoring at large scales.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07699","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In a context of unprecedented insect decline, it is critical to have reliable monitoring tools to measure species diversity and their dynamic at large-scales. High-throughput DNA-based identification methods, and particularly metabarcoding, were proposed as an effective way to reach this aim. However, these identification methods are subject to multiple technical limitations, resulting in unavoidable false-positive and false-negative species detection. Moreover, metabarcoding does not allow a reliable estimation of species abundance in a given sample, which is key to document and detect population declines or range shifts at large scales. To overcome these obstacles, we propose here a human-assisted molecular identification (HAMI) approach, a framework based on a combination of metabarcoding and image-based parataxonomic validation of outputs and recording of abundance. We assessed the advantages of using HAMI over the exclusive use of a metabarcoding approach by examining 492 mixed beetle samples from a biodiversity monitoring initiative conducted throughout France. On average, 23% of the species are missed when relying exclusively on metabarcoding, this percent being consistently higher in species-rich samples. Importantly, on average, 20% of the species identified by molecular-only approaches correspond to false positives linked to cross-sample contaminations or mis-identified barcode sequences in databases. The combination of molecular methodologies and parataxonomic validation in HAMI significantly reduces the intrinsic biases of metabarcoding and recovers reliable abundance data. This approach also enables users to engage in a virtuous circle of database improvement through the identification of specimens associated with missing or incorrectly assigned barcodes. As such, HAMI fills an important gap in the toolbox available for fast and reliable biodiversity monitoring at large scales.
期刊介绍:
ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem.
Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography.
Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.