RESUMO
In 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.
RESUMO
In recent times many benthic indices have been proposed to assess the ecological quality of marine waters worldwide. In this study we compared single metrics and multi-metric methods to assess coastal and transitional benthic status along human pressure gradients in five distinct environments across Europe: Varna bay and lake (Bulgaria), Lesina lagoon (Italy), Mondego estuary (Portugal), Basque coast (Spain) and Oslofjord (Norway). Hence, 13 single metrics (abundance, number of taxa, and several diversity and sensitivity indices) and eight of the most common indices used within the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) for benthic assessment were selected: index of size spectra (ISS), Benthic assessment tool (BAT), Norwegian quality index (NQI), Multivariate AMBI (M-AMBI), Benthic quality index (BQI), (Benthic ecosystem quality index (BEQI), Benthic index based on taxonomic sufficiency (BITS), and infaunal quality index (IQI). Within each system, sampling sites were ordered in an increasing pressure gradient according to a preliminary classification based on professional judgement. The different indices are largely consistent in their response to pressure gradient, except in some particular cases (i.e. BITS, in all cases, or ISS when a low number of individuals is present). Inconsistencies between indicator responses were most pronounced in transitional waters (i.e. IQI, BEQI), highlighting the difficulties of the generic application of indicators to all marine, estuarine and lagoonal environments. However, some of the single (i.e. ecological groups approach, diversity, richness) and multi-metric methods (i.e. BAT, M-AMBI, NQI) were able to detect such gradients both in transitional and coastal environments, being these multi-metric methods more consistent in the detection than single indices. This study highlights the importance of survey design and good reference conditions for some indicators. The agreement observed between different methodologies and their ability to detect quality trends across distinct environments constitutes a promising result for the implementation of the WFD's monitoring plans. Moreover, these results have management implications, regarding the dangers of misclassification, uncertainty in the assessment, use of conflicting indices, and testing and validation of indices.