Search

A decade after environmental scientists integrated high-throughput sequencing technologies in their toolbox, the genomics-based monitoring of anthropogenic impacts on the biodiversity and functioning of ecosystems is yet to be implemented by regulatory frameworks. Despite the broadly acknowledged potential of environmental genomics to this end, technical limitations and conceptual issues still stand in the way of its broad application by end-users. In addition, the multiplicity of potential implementation strategies may contribute to a perception that the routine application of this methodology is premature or "in development", hence restraining regulators from binding these tools into legal frameworks. Here, we review recent implementations of environmental genomics-based methods, applied to the biomonitoring of ecosystems. By taking a general overview, without narrowing our perspective to particular habitats or groups of organisms, this paper aims to compare, review and discuss the strengths and limitations of four general implementation strategies of environmental genomics for monitoring: (a) Taxonomy-based analyses focused on identification of known bioindicators or described taxa; (b) De novo bioindicator analyses; (c) Structural community metrics including inferred ecological networks; and (d) Functional community metrics (metagenomics or metatranscriptomics). We emphasise the utility of the three latter strategies to integrate meiofauna and microorganisms that are not traditionally utilised in biomonitoring because of difficult taxonomic identification. Finally, we propose a roadmap for the implementation of environmental genomics into routine monitoring programmes that leverage recent analytical advancements, while pointing out current limitations and future research needs., (© 2020 The Authors. Molecular Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Increasing anthropogenic impact and global change effects on natural ecosystems has prompted the development of less expensive and more efficient bioassessments methodologies. One promising approach is the integration of DNA metabarcoding in environmental monitoring. A critical step in this process is the inference of ecological quality (EQ) status from identified molecular bioindicator signatures that mirror environmental classification based on standard macroinvertebrate surveys. The most promising approaches to infer EQ from biotic indices (BI) are supervised machine learning (SML) and the calculation of indicator values (IndVal). In this study we compared the performance of both approaches using DNA metabarcodes of bacteria and ciliates as bioindicators obtained from 152 samples collected from seven Norwegian salmon farms. Results from standard macroinvertebrate-monitoring of the same samples were used as reference to compare the accuracy of both approaches. First, SML outperformed the IndVal approach to infer EQ from eDNA metabarcodes. The Random Forest (RF) algorithm appeared to be less sensitive to noisy data (a typical feature of massive environmental sequence data sets) and uneven data coverage across EQ classes (a typical feature of environmental compliance monitoring scheme) compared to a widely used method to infer IndVals for the calculation of a BI. Second, bacteria allowed for a more accurate EQ assessment than ciliate eDNA metabarcodes. For the implementation of DNA metabarcoding into routine monitoring programmes to assess EQ around salmon aquaculture cages, we therefore recommend bacterial DNA metabarcodes in combination with SML to classify EQ categories based on molecular signatures., (© 2020 The Authors. Molecular Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)