The environmental DNA in the risk assessment and decision making processes for the invasive species management in agri-food sector, hydraulic security and biodiversity conservation

The use of environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis as a monitoring tool is becoming more and more widespread. The eDNA metabarcoding methods allow rapid community assessments of different target taxa. This work is focused on the validation of the environmental DNA metabarcoding protocol for biodiversity assessment of freshwater habitats. Scolo Dosolo was chosen as study area and three sampling points were defined for traditional and eDNA analyses. The gutter is a 205 m long anthropic canal located in Sala Bolognese (Bologna, Italy). Fish community and freshwater invertebrate metazoans were the target groups for the analysis. After a preliminary study in summer 2019, 2020 was devoted to the sampling campaign with winter (January), spring (May), summer (July) and autumn (October) surveys. Alongside with the water samplings for the eDNA study, also traditional fish surveys using the electrofishing technique were performed to assess fish community composition; census on invertebrates was performed using an entomological net and a surber sampler. After in silico analysis, the MiFish primer set amplifying a fragment of the 12s rRNA gene was selected for bony fishes. For invertebrates the FWHF2 + FWHR2N primer combination, that amplifies a region of the mitochondrial coi gene, was chosen. Raw reads were analyzed through a bioinformatic pipeline based on OBITools metabarcoding programs package and QIIME2. The OBITools pipeline retrieved seven fish taxa and 54 invertebrate taxa belonging to six different phyla, while QIIME2 recovered eight fish taxa and 45 invertebrate taxa belonging to the same six phyla as the OBITools pipeline. The metabarcoding results were then compared with the traditional surveys data and bibliographic records. Overall, the validated protocol provides a reliable picture of the biodiversity of the study area and an efficient support to the traditional methods.

How reliable is the monitoring of permanent vegetation plots? A test with multiple observers

Questions: A multiple plot design was developed for permanent vegetation plots. How reliable are the different methods used in this design and which changes can we measure? Location: Alpine meadows (2430 m a.s.l.) in the Swiss Alps. Methods: Four inventories were obtained from 40 m(2) plots: four subplots (0.4 m(2)) with a list of species, two 10m transects with the point method (50 points on each), one subplot (4 m2) with a list of species and visual cover estimates as a percentage and the complete plot (40 m(2)) with a list of species and visual estimates in classes. This design was tested by five to seven experienced botanists in three plots. Results: Whatever the sampling size, only 45-63% of the species were seen by all the observers. However, the majority of the overlooked species had cover < 0.1%. Pairs of observers overlooked 10-20% less species than single observers. The point method was the best method for cover estimate, but it took much longer than visual cover estimates, and 100 points allowed for the monitoring of only a very limited number of species. The visual estimate as a percentage was more precise than classes. Working in pairs did not improve the estimates, but one botanist repeating the survey is more reliable than a succession of different observers. Conclusion: Lists of species are insufficient for monitoring. It is necessary to add cover estimates to allow for subsequent interpretations in spite of the overlooked species. The choice of the method depends on the available resources: the point method is time consuming but gives precise data for a limited number of species, while visual estimates are quick but allow for recording only large changes in cover. Constant pairs of observers improve the reliability of the records.