The bioassessment of aquatic ecosystems is currently based on various biotic indices that use the occurrence and/or abundance of selected taxonomic groups to define ecological status. These conventional indices have some limitations, often related to difficulties in morphological identification of bioindicator taxa. Recent development of DNA barcoding and metabarcoding could potentially alleviate some of these limitations, by using DNA sequences instead of morphology to identify organisms and to characterize a given ecosystem. In this paper, we review the structure of conventional biotic indices, and we present the results of pilot metabarcoding studies using environmental DNA to infer biotic indices. We discuss the main advantages and pitfalls of metabarcoding approaches to assess parameters such as richness, abundance, taxonomic composition and species ecological values, to be used for calculation of biotic indices. We present some future developments to fully exploit the potential of metabarcoding data and improve the accuracy and precision of their analysis. We also propose some recommendations for the future integration of DNA metabarcoding to routine biomonitoring programs.

The protection, preservation and restoration of aquatic ecosystems and their functions are of global importance. For European states it became legally binding mainly through the EU-Water Framework Directive (WFD). In order to assess the ecological status of a given water body, aquatic biodiversity data are obtained and compared to a reference water body. The quantified mismatch obtained determines the extent of potential management actions. The current approach to biodiversity assessment is based on morpho-taxonomy. This approach has many drawbacks such as being time consuming, limited in temporal and spatial resolution, and error-prone due to the varying individual taxonomic expertise of the analysts. Novel genomic tools can overcome many of the aforementioned problems and could complement or even replace traditional bioassessment. Yet, a plethora of approaches are independently developed in different institutions, thereby hampering any concerted routine application. The goal of this Action is to nucleate a group of researchers across disciplines with the task to identify gold-standard genomic tools and novel ecogenomic indices for routine application in biodiversity assessments of European fresh-and marine water bodies. Furthermore, DNAqua-Net will provide a platform for training of the next generation of European researchers preparing them for the new technologies. Jointly with water managers, politicians, and other stakeholders, the group will develop a

Classical biomonitoring techniques have focused primarily on measures linked to various biodiversity metrics and indicator species. Next-generation biomonitoring (NGB) describes a suite of tools and approaches that allow the examination of a broader spectrum of organizational levels-from genes to entire ecosystems. Here, we frame 10 key questions that we envisage will drive the field of NGB over the next decade. While Makiola et al. Questions for Next-Generation Biomonitoring not exhaustive, this list covers most of the key challenges facing NGB, and provides the basis of the next steps for research and implementation in this field. These questions have been grouped into current-and outlook-related categories, corresponding to the organization of this paper.

a b s t r a c tWe calculated a Living Planet Index (LPI) for the Netherlands, based on 361 animal species from seven taxonomic groups occurring in terrestrial and freshwater habitats. Our assessment is basically similar to the global LPI, but the latter includes vertebrate species and trends in population abundance only. To achieve inferences on trends in biodiversity more generally, we added two insect groups (butterflies and dragonflies) and added occupancy trends for species for which we had no abundance trends available. According to the LPI, the state of biodiversity has slightly increased from 1990 to 2014. However, large differences exist between habitat types. We found a considerable increase in freshwater animal populations, probably because of improvement of chemical water quality and rehabilitation of marshland habitats. We found no trend in the LPI for woodland populations. In contrast, populations in farmland and open semi-natural habitats (coastal dunes, heathland and semi-natural grassland) declined, which we attribute to intensive agricultural practices and nitrogen deposition, respectively. The LPI shows that, even in a densely populated western European country, ongoing loss of animal biodiversity is not inevitable and may even be reversed if adequate measures are taken. Our approach enabled us to produce summary statistics beyond the level of species groups to monitor the state of biodiversity in a clear and consistent way.

No abstract

Improved biomonitoring of mosquitoes requires an in-depth understanding on occurrences of both vector and non-vector species, in larval, and adult stages. Accurate descriptions of the ecological context in which mosquitoes thrive remain limited, particularly for larval stages. The aim of this study was to develop a mixed-amplicon eDNA approach to assess (i) whether mosquito larval communities of stagnant freshwater bodies can be detected using a Culicidae-specific primer and (ii) how these results compare to traditional trapping of adult mosquitoes. Results from 32 ponds inside and outside Kruger National Park, South Africa show that our primer detected mosquito eDNA. However, it yielded only a subset of the species found using adult trapping methods. Particularly the less frequent and container-breeding species were not found. Our approach provides the first steps toward an eDNA-based method to assess the entire community of larval-stage mosquitoes. It may thereby overcome current taxonomic hurdles presented by morphological identification of larvae. As such, it holds great promise for biomonitoring and ecological studies of mosquitoes.

Aquatic macroinvertebrates are often identified, based on morphology, but molecular approaches like DNA barcoding, metabarcoding and metagenomics are increasingly used for species identification. These approaches require the availability of DNA references deposited in public databases. Here we report the mitochondrial genomes of 11 aquatic macroinvertebrate species from Cyprus, a European Union island country in the Mediterranean. Only three species could be provisionally assigned to a binomial species name, highlighting the current lack of molecular references for aquatic macroinvertebrates from Cyprus. Graphical Abstract

During the past decade genetic approaches have been developed to monitor biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems. These enable access to taxonomic and genetic information from biological communities using DNA from environmental samples (e.g. water, biofilm, soil) and methods based on high-throughput sequencing technologies, such as DNA metabarcoding. Within the context of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), such approaches could be applied to assess Biological Quality Elements (BQE). These are used as indicators of the ecological status of aquatic ecosystems as part of national monitoring programs of the european network of 110,000 surface water monitoring sites with 79.5% rivers and 11% lake sites (Charles et al. 2020). A high-throughput method has the potential to increase our spatio-temporal monitoring capacity and to accelerate the transfer of information to water managers with the aim to increase protection of aquatic ecosystems. Good progress has been made with developing DNA metabarcoding approaches for benthic diatom assemblages. Technological innovation and protocol optimization have allowed robust taxonomic (species) and genetic (OTU, ESV) information to be obtained from which diatom quality indices can be calculated to infer ecological status to rivers and lakes. Diatom DNA metabarcoding has been successfully applied for biomonitoring at the scale of national river monitoring networks in several countries around the world and can now be considered technically ready for routine application (e.g. Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil et al. 2017, Bailet et al. 2019, Mortágua et al. 2019, Vasselon et al. 2019, Kelly et al. 2020, Pérez-Burillo et al. 2020, Pissaridou et al. 2021). However, protocols and methods used by each laboratory still vary between and within countries, limiting their operational transferability and the ability to compare results. Thus, routine use of DNA metabarcoding for diatom biomonitoring requires standardization of all steps of the metabarcoding procedure, from the sampling to the final ecological status assessment in order to define good practices and standards. Following previous initiatives which resulted in a CEN technical report for biofilm sampling and preservation (CEN 2018), a set of experiments was initiated during the DNAqua-Net WG2 diatom workshop (Cyprus, 2019) to focus on DNA extraction and PCR amplification steps in order to evaluate: i) the transferability and reproducibility of a protocol between different laboratories; ii) the variability introduced by different protocols currently applied by the scientific community. 19 participants from 14 countries performed DNA extraction and PCR amplification in parallel, using i) the same fixed protocol and ii) their own protocol. Experiments were performed by each participant on a set of standardized DNA and biofilm samples (river, lake, mock community). In order to specifically test the variability of DNA extraction and PCR amplification steps, all other steps of the metabarcoding process were fixed and the preparation of the Miseq sequencing was performed by only one laboratory. The variability within and between participants will be evaluated on DNA extracts quantity, taxonomic (genus, species) and genetic richness, community structure comparison and diatom quality index scores (IPS). We will also evaluate the variability introduced by different DNA extraction and PCR amplification protocols on diatom quality index scores and the final ecological status assessment. The results from this collaborative work will not serve to define “one protocol to rule them all”, but will provide valuable information to define guidelines and minimum requirements that should be considered when performing diatom metabarcoding for biomonitoring.