Published January 30, 2025
| Version v1
Journal article
Open
Technology Readiness Level of biodiversity monitoring with molecular methods – where are we on the road to routine implementation?
Authors/Creators
- 1. Finnish Environment Institute Syke, Helsinki, Finland|University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
- 2. Finnish Environment Institute Syke, Helsinki, Finland
- 3. eb&p Umweltbüro GmbH, Klagenfurt, Austria
- 4. University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
- 5. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- 6. Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki, Finland
- 7. Metsähallitus, Oulu, Finland
Description
Human activities are causing rapid biodiversity loss across ecosystems, affecting human well-being and crucial ecosystem services. Traditional biodiversity monitoring tools cannot keep up with the increasing demands of monitoring due to their limited spatial or temporal coverage, high costs, and lack of taxonomic expertise. Thus, implementation of novel molecular monitoring methods such as environmental DNA (eDNA) and DNA metabarcoding, are necessary.
Molecular monitoring methods offer significant benefits for biodiversity monitoring and environmental assessment: high sensitivity and accuracy, non-invasive sampling, broad taxonomic range and cost and time efficiency. However, the diverse methodological approaches lead to poor comparability between studies and surveys, highlighting the need for standardised assessments.
We used the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) framework to evaluate the maturity of molecular monitoring methods, providing a structured assessment of their readiness for routine use. In a systematic literature review, 420 articles fulfilling the study criteria were assessed and both individual studies and method categories ranked according to the TRL scale. The findings revealed a growing number of studies, particularly in aquatic environments, with most studies validating molecular technologies on a small scale but lacking large-scale system demonstrations. Aquatic eDNA-based methods targeting fish showed overall higher technology readiness compared to other sample types and taxa and applications of molecular monitoring methods ranked into the highest TRL were predominantly freshwater studies.
Key barriers to the broader implementation of molecular methods to monitoring include the need for international standards, better quantitative estimates and comprehensive reference libraries. National and international cooperation is crucial for establishing common standards, ensuring reliable and comparable results and expediting the routine use of molecular methods in biodiversity monitoring. Recent efforts towards international standardisation are encouraging, but further coordinated actions are necessary for the global implementation and acceptance of these methods.
Files
MBMG_article_130834.pdf
Files
(2.1 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:77609d6d07e40ee1d410c160ac1c2f8b
|
2.1 MB | Preview Download |
System files
(118.6 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:267f48714bb6cd6710e15cfdc9e13ac4
|
118.6 kB | Download |
Linked records
Additional details
References
- Abrego N, Norros V, Halme P, Somervuo P, Ali‐Kovero H, Ovaskainen O (2018) Give me a sample of air and I will tell which species are found from your region: Molecular identification of fungi from airborne spore samples. Molecular ecology resources 18(3): 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12755
- Agersnap S, Larsen WB, Knudsen SW, Strand D, Thomsen PF, Hesselsøe M, Bondgaard Mortensen P, Vrålstad T, Møller PR (2017) Monitoring of noble, signal and narrow-clawed crayfish using environmental DNA from freshwater samples. PLoS ONE 12(6): e0179261. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179261
- Aylagas E, Borja Á, Muxika I, Rodríguez-Ezpeleta N (2018) Adapting metabarcoding-based benthic biomonitoring into routine marine ecological status assessment networks. Ecological Indicators 95: 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.07.044
- Baird DJ, Hajibabaei M (2012) Biomonitoring 2.0: a new paradigm in ecosystem assessment made possible by next‐generation DNA sequencing. Molecular Ecology 21(8): 2039–2044. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05519.x
- Baldigo BP, Sporn LA, George SD, Ball JA (2017) Efficacy of environmental DNA to detect and quantify brook trout populations in headwater streams of the Adirondack Mountains, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 146(1): 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2016.1243578
- Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Dejean T, Griffiths RA, Foster J, Wilkinson JW, Arnell A, Brotherton P, Penny Williams P, Dunn F (2015) Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Biological Conservation 183: 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.029
- Birk S, Bonne W, Borja A, Brucet S, Courrat A, Poikane S, Solimini A, van de Bund W, Zampoukas N, Hering D (2012) Three hundred ways to assess Europe's surface waters: An almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive. Ecological Indicators 18: 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.10.009
- Bohmann K, Evans A, Gilbert MTP, Carvalho GR, Creer S, Knapp M, Yu DW, De Bruyn M (2014) Environmental DNA for wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29(6): 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.04.003
- Carim KJ, Bean NJ, Connor JM, Baker WP, Jaeger M, Ruggles MP, McKelvey KS, Franklin TW, Young MK, Schwartz MK (2020) Environmental DNA Sampling Informs Fish Eradication Efforts: Case Studies and Lessons Learned. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 40(2): 488–508. https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.10428
- De Brauwer M, Deagle B, Dunstan P, Berry O (2023) Integrating environmental DNA science into Australia's marine parks: a roadmap. CSIRO, Hobart.
- Doz YL (1996) The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Journal 17(S1): 55–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171006
- EC (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 20000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Brussels, 1–72.
- European Association of Research & Technology Organisations (2014) The TRL Scale as a Research & Innovation Policy Tool, EARTO Recommendations.
- Frøslev TG, Kjøller R, Bruun HH, Ejrnæs R, Hansen AJ, Læssøe T, Heilmann-Clausen J (2019) Man against machine: Do fungal fruitbodies and eDNA give similar biodiversity assessments across broad environmental gradients? Biological Conservation 233: 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.02.038
- Gargan LM, Morato T, Pham CK, Finarelli JA, Carlsson JE, Carlsson J (2017) Development of a sensitive detection method to survey pelagic biodiversity using eDNA and quantitative PCR: A case study of devil ray at seamounts. Marine Biology 164(5): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-017-3141-x
- Garud R, Tuertscher P, Van de Ven A (2013) Perspectives on innovative processes. The Academy of Management Annals 7(1): 773–817. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.791066
- Goodwin K, Fillingham K, Meyer C, Edmondson M, Weise M, Allen D, Amerson A, Barton M, Benson A, Canonico G, Clark K, Darling J, Demery A, Everett M, Fletcher-Hoppe C, Gold Z, Gumm J, Hunter M, Joffe N, Lance R, Larkin A, Letelier R, Lipsky C, McCoskey D, Morrison C, Nichols K, Parsons K, Price J, Puglise K, Scholl K, Schwartz M, Sepulveda A, Shannon J, Turner W, White T (2024) National Aquatic Environmental DNA Strategy. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Washington, DC.
- Hering D, Borja A, Jones JI, Pont D, Boets P, Bouchez A, Bruce K, Drakare S, Hänfling B, Kahlert M, Leese F, Meissner K, Mergen P, Reyjol Y, Segurado P, Vogler A, Kelly M (2018) Implementation options for DNA-based identification into ecological status assessment under the European Water Framework Directive. Water Research 138: 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.003
- Hoban S, Bruford M, Jackson JD, Lopes-Fernandes M, Heuertz M, Hohenlohe PA, Laikre L (2020) Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biological Conservation 248: 108654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108654
- IPBES (2018) Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Fischer M, Rounsevell M, Torre-Marin Rando A, Mader A, Church A, Elbakidze M, Elias V, Hahn T, Harrison PA, Hauck J, Martín-López B, Ring I, Sandström C, Sousa Pinto I, Visconti P, Zimmermann NE, Christie M (Eds) IPBES secretariat, Bonn, 48 pp. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3237428
- Kareiva P, Marvier M (2012) What is conservation science? Bioscience 62(11): 962–969. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5
- Kelly RP, Lodge DM, Lee KN, Theroux S, Sepulveda AJ, Scholin CA, Weisberg SB (2024) Toward a national eDNA strategy for the United States. Environmental DNA 6(1): e432. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.432
- Kohl C, McIntosh EJ, Unger S, Haddaway NR, Kecke S, Schiemann J, Wilhelm R (2018) Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: A case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environmental Evidence 7: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0115-5
- Meissner K, Aroviita J, Majaneva M, Ekrem T, Schartau AK, Friberg N, Ólafsson J, Johnson RK, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Leese F, Elbrecht V (2019) SCANDNAnet -Validating and intercalibrating metabarcoding for routine use in Nordic freshwater biomonitoring.
- Minerovic AD, Potapova MG, Sales CM, Price JR, Enache MD (2020) 18S-V9 DNA metabarcoding detects the effect of water-quality impairment on stream biofilm eukaryotic assemblages. Ecological Indicators 113: 106225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106225
- Norros V, Laamanen T, Meissner K, Iso-Touru T, Kahilainen A, Lehtinen S, Lohtander-Buckbee K, Nygård H, Pennanen T, Ruohonen-Lehto M, Sirkiä P, Suikkanen S, Tolkkinen M, Vainio E, Velmala S, Vuorio K, Vihervaara P (2022) Roadmap for implementing environmental DNA (eDNA) and other molecular monitoring methods in Finland–Vision and action plan for 2022–2025.
- Ring PS, Van de Ven A (1994) Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review 19(1): 90–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/258836
- Rogers EM (1962) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, New York.
- Schilke O, Cook KS (2013) A cross-level process theory of trust development in interorganizational relationships. Strategic Organization 11(3): 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127012472096
- Schnell IB, Bohmann K, Schultze SE, Richter SR, Murray DC, Sinding MHS, Gilbert MTP (2018) Debugging diversity – a pan‐continental exploration of the potential of terrestrial blood‐feeding leeches as a vertebrate monitoring tool. Molecular Ecology Resources 18(6): 1282–1298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12912
- Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2020) Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 – Summary for Policy Makers. Montréal.
- Suter L, Polanowski AM, Clarke LJ, Kitchener JA, Deagle BE (2021) Capturing open ocean biodiversity: Comparing environmental DNA metabarcoding to the continuous plankton recorder. Molecular Ecology 30(13): 3140–3157. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15587
- Thomsen PF, Willerslev E (2015) Environmental DNA – An emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biological Conservation 183: 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019
- Vasselon V, Rimet F, Tapolczai K, Bouchez A (2017) Assessing ecological status with diatoms DNA metabarcoding: Scaling-up on a WFD monitoring network (Mayotte island, France). Ecological Indicators 82: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.024
- Vik J, Melås AM, Stræte EP, Søraa RA (2021) Balanced readiness level assessment (BRLa): A tool for exploring new and emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 169: 120854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120854
- Wetterstrand KA (2023) DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP). www.genome.gov/sequencingcostsdata
- White NE, Guzik MT, Austin AD, Moore GI, Humphreys WF, Alexander J, Bunce M (2020) Detection of the rare Australian endemic blind cave eel (Ophisternon candidum) with environmental DNA: Implications for threatened species management in subterranean environments. Hydrobiologia 847(15): 3201–3211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-020-04304-z