Efficacy and deficiencies of rapid biomonitoring in biodiversity conservation: a case study in South Africa

Barber-James, Helen M.; Pereira-da-Conceicoa, LL

doi:10.2989/16085914.2016.1192019

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Together with other macroinvertebrates, aquatic insects—especially mayflies—have become an important tool for monitoring the quality of freshwaters (e.g., see [106,107,108]) and their associated terrestrial riparian habitats, due to the essential roles these arthropods play in aquatic ecosystems, their sensitivity to change, and our increasing abilities to collect and identify them. Mayflies, at the order and various subordinate taxonomic levels, have become well-known for their use in these efforts (e.g., [109,110,111,112]), which are applied to the protection of both biodiversity and human water supplies throughout the world (e.g., [113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122]).…”

Section: Roles In Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and Their Contributions to Ecosystem Services

Jacobus

Macadam

Sartori

2019

Insects

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work is intended as a general and concise overview of Ephemeroptera biology, diversity, and services provided to humans and other parts of our global array of freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. The Ephemeroptera, or mayflies, are a small but diverse order of amphinotic insects associated with liquid freshwater worldwide. They are nearly cosmopolitan, except for Antarctica and some very remote islands. The existence of the subimago stage is unique among extant insects. Though the winged stages do not have functional mouthparts or digestive systems, the larval, or nymphal, stages have a variety of feeding approaches—including, but not limited to, collector-gatherers, filterers, scrapers, and active predators—with each supported by a diversity of morphological and behavioral adaptations. Mayflies provide direct and indirect services to humans and other parts of both freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. In terms of cultural services, they have provided inspiration to musicians, poets, and other writers, as well as being the namesakes of various water- and aircraft. They are commemorated by festivals worldwide. Mayflies are especially important to fishing. Mayflies contribute to the provisioning services of ecosystems in that they are utilized as food by human cultures worldwide (having one of the highest protein contents of any edible insect), as laboratory organisms, and as a potential source of antitumor molecules. They provide regulatory services through their cleaning of freshwater. They provide many essential supporting services for ecosystems such as bioturbation, bioirrigation, decomposition, nutrition for many kinds of non-human animals, nutrient cycling and spiraling in freshwaters, nutrient cycling between aquatic and terrestrial systems, habitat for other organisms, and serving as indicators of ecosystem health. About 20% of mayfly species worldwide might have a threatened conservation status due to influences from pollution, invasive alien species, habitat loss and degradation, and climate change. Even mitigation of negative influences has benefits and tradeoffs, as, in several cases, sustainable energy production negatively impacts mayflies.

show abstract

Section: Roles In Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and Their Contributions to Ecosystem Services

Jacobus

Macadam

Sartori

2019

Insects

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our samples differed considerably in terms of taxon scores and numbers, yet when compared at the SASS-level of biological bands, these differences became minimal. A number of studies have warned that family-level identification, being a compromise between accuracy and the level of taxonomic expertise required, is not precise enough to assess water quality changes, primarily due to the different habitat requirements and pollution tolerances found between species within the same family (Barber-James & Pereira-da-Conceicoa, 2016; de Moor, 2002a; Odume, Muller, Arimoro, & Palmer, 2012; Odume, Palmer, Arimoro, & Mensah, 2015). The current lack of data on the habitat requirements and pollution tolerances of some groups can prove problematic for monitoring, especially in biodiverse but water-stressed areas such as South Africa, however a DNA based approach may rapidly provide these data over large taxonomic and geographic scales when combined with relevant information on the sites sampled and the inclusion of reference sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Freshwater resources in Africa are highly impacted, and in South Africa, 57% of river and 75% of wetland ecosystems are highly threatened (Dallas & Rivers-Moore, 2014; Darwall, Smith, Tweddle, & Skelton, 2009; Driver, Sink, Nel, Holness, Van Niekerk, Daniels, Jonas, Majiedt, Harris, and Maze, 2012; Nel et al, 2011). A more in-depth knowledge of the current biodiversity would greatly improve our ability to inform decisions (Hamer, 2013) and is a critical factor hindering freshwater conservation in Africa (Barber-James & Pereira-da-Conceicoa, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, such coarse taxonomic resolution has been shown to overlook the varying tolerances at generic or species levels, which can be used to make more well-informed water management decisions (e.g. Barber-James & Pereira-da-Conceicoa, 2016; Macher et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Identification at the SASS level (i.e. the mixed higher taxon levels) is too coarse for biodiversity and ecological impact assessment, and should only be used as a red-flag indicator of changes in water quality of a monitored site (Dickens & Graham, 2002), however due to the lack of alternative methods SASS is frequently misused in southern Africa (Barber-James & Pereira-da-Conceicoa, 2016). Data should be interpreted in relation to season of collection as some natural variation will occur throughout the year (Dickens & Graham, 2002) and seasonal data is required to capture a holistic view of the taxa occurring at a site.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Metabarcoding unsorted kick-samples facilitates macroinvertebrate-based biomonitoring with increased taxonomic resolution, while outperforming environmental DNA

Pereira-da-Conceicoa

Elbrecht

Hall

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have highlighted the potential of DNA-based methods for the biomonitoring of freshwater macroinvertebrates, however only a few studies have investigated homogenisation of bulk samples that include debris to reduce sample-processing time. In order to explore the use of DNA-based methods in water quality assessment in South Africa, this study compares morphological and molecular-based identification of freshwater macroinvertebrates at the mixed higher taxon and mOTU level while investigating abundance and comparing mOTU recovery with historical species records. From seven sites across three rivers in South Africa, we collected a biomonitoring sample, an intensive-search comprehensive sample and an eDNA sample per site. The biomonitoring sample was picked and scored according to standard protocols and the leftover debris and comprehensive samples were homogenised including all debris. DNA-based methods recovered higher diversity than morphology, but did not always recover the same taxa, even at the family level. Regardless of the differences in taxon scores, most DNA-based methods except some eDNA samples, returned the same water quality assessment category as the standard morphology-based assessment. Homogenised comprehensive samples recovered more freshwater invertebrate diversity than all other methods. The eDNA samples recovered 2 to 10 times more mOTUs than any other method, however 90% of reads were non-target and as a result eDNA recovered the lowest target diversity. However, eDNA did find some target taxa that the other methods failed to detect. This study shows that unsorted samples recover the same water quality scores as a morphology-based assessment and much higher diversity scores than both picked and eDNA samples. As a result, there is potential to integrate DNA-based approaches into existing metrics quickly while providing much more information for the development of more refined metrics at the species or mOTU level with distributional data which can be used for conservation and biodiversity management.

show abstract

Metabarcoding unsorted kick‐samples facilitates macroinvertebrate‐based biomonitoring with increased taxonomic resolution, while outperforming environmental DNA

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While previous studies have highlighted the potential of DNA‐based methods for the biomonitoring of freshwater macroinvertebrates, a limited number have investigated homogenization of bulk samples that include debris, in order to reduce sample‐processing costs. This study explores the use of several DNA‐based survey methods for water quality and biodiversity assessment in South Africa, comparing morphological and molecular‐based identification of freshwater macroinvertebrates at the family level and the level of molecular operational taxonomic units (mOTUs). Seven sites were studied across three rivers with four different sample types collected per site: a standard SASS biomonitoring sample split into a picked sample (also used for morphological identification) and a leftover debris sample; a more intensive‐search comprehensive sample; and a filtered water eDNA sample. DNA‐based methods recovered higher diversity than morphology, but did not always recover the same taxa, even at the family level. Regardless of the differences in SASS taxon scores, most DNA‐based methods, except a few eDNA samples, returned the same water quality assessment category as the standard morphology‐based assessment. Homogenized comprehensive samples recovered more freshwater invertebrate diversity than all other methods, suggesting the standardized SASS method overlooks taxa. The eDNA samples recovered more diversity than any other method; however, 90% of the reads were nontarget and as a result eDNA recovered the lowest target (macroinvertebrate) diversity. However, eDNA did find some target taxa that all other methods failed to detect. This study shows that unsorted bulk samples have the potential to be used for water quality biomonitoring, providing higher diversity estimates for macroinvertebrates than either SASS picked or eDNA samples. These results also show the value of incorporating DNA‐based approaches into existing South African metrics, providing additional taxonomic resolution to develop more refined metrics for biodiversity management.

show abstract

Efficacy and deficiencies of rapid biomonitoring in biodiversity conservation: a case study in South Africa

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and Their Contributions to Ecosystem Services

Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and Their Contributions to Ecosystem Services

Metabarcoding unsorted kick-samples facilitates macroinvertebrate-based biomonitoring with increased taxonomic resolution, while outperforming environmental DNA

Metabarcoding unsorted kick‐samples facilitates macroinvertebrate‐based biomonitoring with increased taxonomic resolution, while outperforming environmental DNA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About