Trade-Offs Between Reducing Complex Terminology and Producing Accurate Interpretations from Environmental DNA: Comment on “Environmental DNA: What\u27s behind the term?” by Pawlowski et al., (2020)

In a recent paper, “Environmental DNA: What\u27s behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring,” Pawlowski et al. argue that the term eDNA should be used to refer to the pool of DNA isolated from environmental samples, as opposed to only extra-organismal DNA from macro-organisms. We agree with this view. However, we are concerned that their proposed two-level terminology specifying sampling environment and targeted taxa is overly simplistic and might hinder rather than improve clear communication about environmental DNA and its use in biomonitoring. This terminology is based on categories that are often difficult to assign and uninformative, and it overlooks a fundamental distinction within eDNA: the type of DNA (organismal or extra-organismal) from which ecological interpretations are derived

Temporal dynamics of freshwater planktonic parasites inferred using a DNA metabarcoding time-series

Parasites are important components of biodiversity and contributors to ecosystem functioning, but are often neglected in ecological studies. Most studies examine model parasite systems or single taxa, thus our understanding of community composition is lacking. Here, the seasonal and annual dynamics of parasites was quantified using a 5-year metabarcoding time-series of freshwater plankton, collected weekly. We first identified parasites in the dataset using literature searches of the taxonomic match and using sequence metadata from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) nucleotide database. In total, 441 amplicon sequence variants (belonging to 18 phyla/clades) were classified as parasites. The four phyla/clades with the highest relative read abundance and richness were Chytridiomycota, Dinoflagellata, Oomycota and Perkinsozoa. Relative read abundance of total parasite taxa, Dinoflagellata and Perkinsozoa significantly varied with season and was highest in summer. Parasite richness varied significantly with season and year, and was generally lowest in spring. Each season had distinct parasite communities, and the difference between summer and winter communities was most pronounced. Combining DNA metabarcoding with searches of the literature and NCBI metadata allowed us to characterize parasite diversity and community dynamics and revealed the extent to which parasites contribute to the diversity of freshwater plankton communities

Trade-offs between reducing complex terminology and producing accurate interpretations from environmental DNA: Comment on “Environmental DNA: What's behind the term?” by Pawlowski et al., (2020)

In a recent paper, “Environmental DNA: What's behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring,” Pawlowski et al. argue that the term eDNA should be used to refer to the pool of DNA isolated from environmental samples, as opposed to only extra-organismal DNA from macro-organisms. We agree with this view. However, we are concerned that their proposed two-level terminology specifying sampling environment and targeted taxa is overly simplistic and might hinder rather than improve clear communication about environmental DNA and its use in biomonitoring. This terminology is based on categories that are often difficult to assign and uninformative, and it overlooks a fundamental distinction within eDNA: the type of DNA (organismal or extra-organismal) from which ecological interpretations are derived

Trade- offs between reducing complex terminology and producing accurate interpretations from environmental DNA: Comment on “Environmental DNA: What's behind the term?” by Pawlowski et al., (2020)

In a recent paper, "Environmental DNA: What's behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring," Pawlowski et al. argue that the term eDNA should be used to refer to the pool of DNA isolated from environmental samples, as opposed to only extra-organismal DNA from macro-organisms. We agree with this view. However, we are concerned that their proposed two-level terminology specifying sampling environment and targeted taxa is overly simplistic and might hinder rather than improve clear communication about environmental DNA and its use in biomonitoring. This terminology is based on categories that are often difficult to assign and uninformative, and it overlooks a fundamental distinction within eDNA: the type of DNA (organismal or extra-organismal) from which ecological interpretations are derived.ISSN:0962-1083ISSN:1365-294