Accurate assessments of biodiversity are crucial to advising ecosystem-monitoring programs and understanding ecosystem function. Nevertheless, a standard operating procedure to assess biodiversity accurately and consistently has not been established. This is especially true for meiofauna, a diverse community (>20 phyla) of small benthic invertebrates that have fundamental ecological roles. Recent studies show that metabarcoding is a cost-effective and time-effective method to estimate meiofauna biodiversity, in contrast to morphological-based taxonomy. Here, we compare biodiversity assessments of a diverse meiofaunal community derived by applying multiple taxonomic methods based on comparative morphology, molecular phylogenetic analysis, DNA barcoding of individual specimens, and metabarcoding of environmental DNA. We show that biodiversity estimates are strongly biased across taxonomic methods and phyla. Such biases affect understanding of community structures and ecological interpretations. This study supports the urgency of improving aspects of environmental high-throughput sequencing and the value of taxonomists in correctly understanding biodiversity estimates.

Biodiversity estimates and ecological interpretations of meiofaunal communities are biased by the taxonomic approach / Leasi, Francesca; Sevigny, Joseph L; Laflamme, Eric M; Artois, Tom; Curini-Galletti, Marco; de Jesus Navarrete, Alberto; Di Domenico, Maikon; Goetz, Freya; Hall, Jeffrey A; Hochberg, Rick; Jörger, Katharina M; Jondelius, Ulf; Todaro, M Antonio; Wirshing, Herman H; Norenburg, Jon L; Thomas, W Kelley. - In: COMMUNICATIONS BIOLOGY. - ISSN 2399-3642. - 1:(2018). [10.1038/s42003-018-0119-2]

Biodiversity estimates and ecological interpretations of meiofaunal communities are biased by the taxonomic approach

Curini-Galletti, Marco
Investigation
;
2018-01-01

Abstract

Accurate assessments of biodiversity are crucial to advising ecosystem-monitoring programs and understanding ecosystem function. Nevertheless, a standard operating procedure to assess biodiversity accurately and consistently has not been established. This is especially true for meiofauna, a diverse community (>20 phyla) of small benthic invertebrates that have fundamental ecological roles. Recent studies show that metabarcoding is a cost-effective and time-effective method to estimate meiofauna biodiversity, in contrast to morphological-based taxonomy. Here, we compare biodiversity assessments of a diverse meiofaunal community derived by applying multiple taxonomic methods based on comparative morphology, molecular phylogenetic analysis, DNA barcoding of individual specimens, and metabarcoding of environmental DNA. We show that biodiversity estimates are strongly biased across taxonomic methods and phyla. Such biases affect understanding of community structures and ecological interpretations. This study supports the urgency of improving aspects of environmental high-throughput sequencing and the value of taxonomists in correctly understanding biodiversity estimates.
2018
Biodiversity estimates and ecological interpretations of meiofaunal communities are biased by the taxonomic approach / Leasi, Francesca; Sevigny, Joseph L; Laflamme, Eric M; Artois, Tom; Curini-Galletti, Marco; de Jesus Navarrete, Alberto; Di Domenico, Maikon; Goetz, Freya; Hall, Jeffrey A; Hochberg, Rick; Jörger, Katharina M; Jondelius, Ulf; Todaro, M Antonio; Wirshing, Herman H; Norenburg, Jon L; Thomas, W Kelley. - In: COMMUNICATIONS BIOLOGY. - ISSN 2399-3642. - 1:(2018). [10.1038/s42003-018-0119-2]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s42003-018-0249-6.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione finale pubblicata)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 254.21 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
254.21 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11388/221808
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 36
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 36
social impact