| Authors | Leese F., Bouchez A., Abarenkov K., Altermatt F., Borja A., Bruce K., Ekrem T., Ciampor F., Ciamporova-Zatovicova Z., Costa F., Duarte S., Elbrecht V., Fontaneto D., Franc A., Geiger M., Hering D., Kahlert M., Kalamujic Stroil B., Kelly M., Keskin E., Liska I., Mergen P., Meissner K., Pawlowski J., Penev L., Reyjol Y., Rotter A., Steinke D., Va Der Wal B., Vitecek S., Zimmermann J., Weigand A. |
| Text | 385606 2018 10.1016/bs.aecr.2018.01.001 Bioassessment Biotic index Environmental legislation Freshwater Marine Marine Strategy Framework Directive Water quality Water Framework Directive Why we need sustainable networks bridging countries, disciplines, cultures and generations for aquatic biomonitoring 2.0 a perspective derived from the DNAqua Net COST Action Leese F., Bouchez A., Abarenkov K., Altermatt F., Borja A., Bruce K., Ekrem T., Ciampor F., Ciamporova Zatovicova Z., Costa F., Duarte S., Elbrecht V., Fontaneto D., Franc A., Geiger M., Hering D., Kahlert M., Kalamujic Stroil B., Kelly M., Keskin E., Liska I., Mergen P., Meissner K., Pawlowski J., Penev L., Reyjol Y., Rotter A., Steinke D., Va Der Wal B., Vitecek S., Zimmermann J., Weigand A. Aquatic Ecosystem Research, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany; Center of Water and Environmental Research ZWU , University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany; INRA UMR CARRTEL, Thonon les bains, France; University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia; Eawag, Dubendorf, Switzerland; University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; AZTI, Pasaia, Spain; NatureMetrics, CABI Site, Surrey, United Kingdom; Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; Zoology Lab, Plant Science and Biodiversity Center, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia; Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology CBMA , University of Minho, Braga, Portugal; Centre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada; National Research Council of Italy, Institute of Ecosystem Study, Verbania Pallanza, Italy; BIOGECO, INRA, Univ. Bordeaux, Cestas, and Pleiade Team, INRIA Sud Ouest, Talence, France; Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Leibniz Institute for Animal Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany; Aquatic Ecology, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden; University of Sarajevo Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bowburn Consultancy, Durham, United Kingdom; Evolutionary Genetics Laboratory eGL , Ankara University Agricultural Faculty, Ankara, Turkey; ICPDR Permanent Secretariat, Vienna International Centre, Vienna, Austria; Botanic Garden Meise, Meise, Belgium; Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium; Finnish Environment Institute, General Director s Office, Jyvaskyla, Finland; University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria; AFB, The French Agency for Biodiversity, Direction de la Recherche, Vincennes, France; National Institute of Biology, Ljubljana, Slovenia; University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada; STOWA, Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer, Amersfoort, The Netherlands; University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum, Freie Universitat Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Musee National d Histoire Naturelle de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg Aquatic biomonitoring has become an essential task in Europe and many other regions as a consequence of strong anthropogenic pressures affecting the health of lakes, rivers, oceans and groundwater. A typical assessment of the environmental quality status, such as it is required by European but also North American and other legislation, relies on matching the composition of assemblages of organisms identified using morphological criteria present in aquatic ecosystems to those expected in the absence of anthropo genic pressures. Through decade long and difficult intercalibration exercises among networks of regulators and scientists in European countries, a pragmatic biomonitoring approach was developed and adopted, which now produces invaluable information. Nonetheless, this approach is based on several hundred different protocols, making it susceptible to issues with comparability, scale and resolution. Furthermore, data acquisition is often slow due to a lack of taxonomic experts for many taxa and regions and time consuming morphological identification of organisms. High throughput genetic screening methods such as e DNA metabarcoding have been proposed as a possible solution to these shortcomings. Such next generation biomonitoring , also termed biomonitoring 2.0 , has many advantages over the traditional approach in terms of speed, comparability and costs. It also creates the potential to include new bio indicators and thereby further improves the assessment of aquatic ecosystem health. However, several major conceptual and technological challenges still hinder its imple mentation into legal and regulatory frameworks. Academic scientists sometimes tend to overlook legal or socioeconomic constraints, which regulators have to consider on a regular basis. Moreover, quantification of species abundance or biomass remains a sig nificant bottleneck to releasing the full potential of these approaches. Here, we highlight the main challenges for next generation aquatic biomonitoring and outline principles and good practices to address these with an emphasis on bridging traditional disciplin ary boundaries between academics, regulators, stakeholders and industry. 58 Published version Articolo 2018_Advances_in_Ecological_Research_58_63_99.pdf Articolo in rivista Academic Press, 0065 2504 Advances in Ecological Research Advances in Ecological Research Adv. Ecol. Res. Advances in ecological research. diego.fontaneto FONTANETO DIEGO |
