The efficacy of DNA barcoding in the classification, genetic differentiation, and biodiversity assessment of benthic macroinvertebrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Macroinvertebrates have been recognized as key ecological indicators of aquatic environment and are the most commonly used approaches for water quality assessment. However, species identification of macroinvertebrates (especially of aquatic insects) proves to be very difficult due to the lack of taxonomic expertise in some regions and can become time‐consuming. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of DNA barcoding for the classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and investigated the genetic differentiation in seven orders (Insecta: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, and Odonata) from four large transboundary rivers of northwest China and further explored its potential application to biodiversity assessment. A total of 1,144 COI sequences, belonging to 176 species, 112 genera, and 53 families were obtained and analyzed. The barcoding gap analysis showed that COI gene fragment yielded significant intra‐ and interspecific divergences and obvious barcoding gaps. NJ phylogenetic trees showed that all species group into monophyletic species clusters whether from the same population or not, except two species ( Polypedilum. laetum and Polypedilum. bullum ). The distance‐based (ABGD) and tree‐based (PTP and MPTP) methods were utilized for grouping specimens into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) and delimiting species. The ABGD, PTP, and MPTP analysis were divided into 177 ( p = .0599), 197, and 195 OTUs, respectively. The BIN analysis generated 186 different BINs. Overall, our study showed that DNA barcoding offers an effective framework for macroinvertebrate species identification and sheds new light on the biodiversity assessment of local macroinvertebrates. Also, the construction of DNA barcode reference library of benthic macroinvertebrates in Eurasian transboundary rivers provides a solid backup for bioassessment studies of freshwater habitats using modern high‐throughput technologies in the near future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".