Abstract
Vegetation surveys are conducted to obtain a catalogue of the plant species that occupy an area of interest, and are used to inform the decisions of policymakers about conservation, development, and remediation efforts. Currently, vegetation surveys rely on traditional morphology-based taxonomic practices to identify collected specimens. By implementing recent advances in molecular taxonomy, it may be possible to improve upon these methods and reduce the associated costs. In this study, we used both morphological and molecular taxonomic methods to sample 337 forest vegetation plots in northeastern Ontario, Canada. DNA barcoding—a molecular taxonomic tool—was used to identify specimens collected in the molecular taxonomic survey. The molecular taxonomic survey identified a mean of 12.4 species per plot and 202 species in total, whereas the morphological taxonomic survey identified a mean of 9.8 species per plot and 142 species in total; both surveys provided identical estimates of community similarity. The morphological taxonomic survey was 37 % more expensive than molecular taxonomic survey, owing largely to the increased time required in the field to collect specimens that flowered at different times. Our results indicate that molecular taxonomic tools are more cost-effective than traditional morphology-based taxonomic practices for species identification in vegetation surveys. Taxonomy underpins all conservation, and the implementation of molecular taxonomic tools for vegetation surveys has promise to lessen the consequences of the taxonomic impediment and increase the effectiveness of conservation efforts.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
08 September 2021
Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the reliability of data presented in this manuscript is currently in question. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.
27 October 2021
This article has been retracted. Please see the Retraction Notice for more detail: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02316-2
References
Archaux F (2009) Could we obtain better estimates of plot species richness from multiple-observer plant censuses? J Veg Sci 20:603–611
Austin MP, Heyligers PC (1989) Vegetation survey design for conservation: gradsect sampling of forests in North-eastern New South Wales. Biol Conserv 50:13–32
Balmford A, Gaston KJ, Rodrigues ASL, James A (2000) Integrating costs of conservation into international priority setting. Conserv Biol 14:597–605
Beanlands GE, Duinker PN (1983) An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie
Begerow D, Nilsson H, Unterseher M, Maier W (2010) Current state and perspectives of fungal DNA barcoding and rapid identification procedures. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 87:99–108
Bell F, Parton J, Stocker N, Joyce D (2008) Developing a silvicultural framework and definitions for use in forest management planning and practice. Forest Chron 84:678–693
Campbell JB (1959) Flowering sequence of a local flora. J Range Manag 12:127–132
CBOL Plant Working Group (2009) A DNA barcode for land plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:12794–12797
Chase M, Fay M, Devey D et al (2006) Multigene analyses of monocot relationships: a summary. Aliso 22:62–74
Chen S, Yao H, Han J et al (2010) Validation of the ITS2 region as a novel DNA barcode for identifying medicinal plant species. PLoS ONE 5:e8613
Claridge MF, Dawah HA, Wilson MR (1997) Species: The units of biodiversity. Chapman & Hall, London
Core Team R (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Austria, Vienna
Costa GC, Nogueira C, Machado RB, Colli GR (2010) Sampling bias and the use of ecological niche modeling in conservation planning: a field evaluation in a biodiversity hotspot. Biodivers Conserv 19:883–899
Curtis JT (1959) The vegetation of Wisconsin: an ordination of plant communities. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison
de Boer HJ, Ouarghidi A, Martin G et al (2014) DNA barcoding reveals limited accuracy of identifications based on folk taxonomy. PLoS ONE 9:e84291
de Carvalho MR, Bockmann FA, Amorim DS et al (2005) Revisiting the taxonomic impediment. Science 307:353
de Mattia F, Gentili R, Bruni I et al (2012) A multi-marker DNA barcoding approach to save time and resources in vegetation surveys. Bot J Linn Soc 169:518–529
Dubois A (2003) The relationships between taxonomy and conservation biology in the century of extinctions. C R Biol 326:9–21
Ensing DJ, Moffat CE, Pither J (2012) Taxonomic identification errors generate misleading ecological niche model predictions of an invasive hawkweed. Botany 91:137–147
Fazekas AJ, Burgess KS, Kesanakurti PR et al (2008) Multiple multilocus DNA barcodes from the plastid genome discriminate plant species equally well. PLoS ONE 3:e2802
Fazekas AJ, Kuzmina ML, Newmaster SG, Hollingsworth PM (2012) DNA barcoding methods for land plants. In: Kress WJ, Erickson (ed) DNA barcodes: methods and protocols. Methods Mol Bol 853:223–252
Frézal L, Leblois R (2008) Four years of DNA barcoding: current advances and prospects. Infect Genet Evol 8:727–736
García-Robledo C, Erickson DL, Staines CL et al (2013) Tropical plant-herbivore networks: reconstructing species interactions using DNA barcodes. PLoS ONE 8:e52967
Ghahramanzadeh R, Esselink G, Kodde LP et al (2013) Efficient distinction of invasive aquatic plant species from non-invasive related species using DNA barcoding. Mol Ecol Resour 13:21–31
Gonzalez MA, Baraloto C, Engel J et al (2009) Identification of Amazonian trees with DNA barcodes. PLoS ONE 4:e7483
Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391
Gurevitch J, Padilla DK (2004) Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends Ecol Evol 19:470–474
Hajibabaei M, Shokralla S, Zhou X et al (2011) Environmental barcoding: a next-generation sequencing approach for biomonitoring applications using river benthos. PLoS ONE 6:e17497
Harrell Jr FE, Dupont MC (2012) Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. R package version 3.10-1. [http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc]
Hebert PDN, Gregory TR (2005) The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy. Syst Biol 54:852–859
Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc London Series B Biol Sci 270:313–321
Hill SR (2003) Conservation assessment for Barren strawberry (Waldsteinia fragarioides ssp. fragarioides). United States Forest Service, Washington, DC
Hill MO, Gauch HG (1980) Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47–58
Ivanova NV, Grainger C (2006) Pre-made frozen PCR and sequencing plates. [www.dnabarcoding.ca/CCDB_DOCS/CCDB_Advances_Methods_Release_No4_Dec1st_2006.pdf]
Ivanova NV, DeWaard JR, Hajibabaei M, Hebert PDN (2005) Protocols for high volume DNA barcoding; [http://www.dnabarcoding.ca/]
Ivanova NV, Fazekas AJ, Hebert PDN (2008) Semi-automated, membrane-based protocol for DNA isolation from plants. Plant Mol Biol Rep 26:186–198
Ivanova NV, Kuzmina ML, Fazekas AJ (2011) CCDB Protocols. Manual protocol employing centrifugation: Glass fiber plate DNA extraction protocol for plants, fungi, echinoderms, and mollusks. [http://www.ccdb.ca/CCDB_DOCS/CCDB_DNA_Extraction-Plants.pdf]
Jongman RHG, ter Braak CJF, Van Tongeren OFR (1995) Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kesanakurti PR, Fazekas AJ, Burgess KS et al (2011) Spatial patterns of plant diversity below-ground as revealed by DNA barcoding. Mol Ecol 20:1289–1302
Kool A, de Boer HJ, Krüger Å et al (2012) Molecular identification of commercialized medicinal plants in southern Morocco. PLoS ONE 7:e39459
Kress WJ, Erickson DL (2007) A two-locus global DNA barcode for land plants: the coding rbcL gene complements the non-coding trnH-psbA spacer region. PLoS ONE 2:e508
Kress WJ, Wurdack KJ, Zimmer EA et al (2005) Use of DNA barcodes to identify flowering plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:8369–8374
Kress WJ, Erickson DL, Jones FA et al (2009) Plant DNA barcodes and a community phylogeny of a tropical forest dynamics plot in Panama. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:18621–18626
Kress WJ, Erickson DL, Swenson NG et al (2010) Advances in the use of DNA barcodes to build a community phylogeny for tropical trees in a Puerto Rican forest dynamics plot. PLoS ONE 5:e15409
Kuzmina ML, Ivanova NV (2011a) PCR amplification for plants and fungi. [http://www.ccdb.ca/CCDB_DOCS/CCDB_Amplification-Plants.pdf]
Kuzmina ML, Ivanova NV (2011b) CCDB Protocols. [http://www.ccdb.ca/CCDB_DOCS/CCDB_PrimerSets-Plants.pdf]
Kuzmina ML, Johnson KL, Barron HR, Hebert PDN (2012) Identification of the vascular plants of Churchill, Manitoba, using a DNA barcode library. BMC Ecol 12:25
Laiou A, Mandolini LA, Piredda R et al (2013) DNA barcoding as a complementary tool for conservation and valorisation of forest resources. Zookeys 213:197–213
Lawrence DP (2003) Environmental impact assessment. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken
Lepš J, Hadincová V (1992) How reliable are our vegetation analyses? J Veg Sci 3:119–124
Levin RA, Wagner WL, Hoch PC et al (2003) Family-level relationships of Onagraceae based on chloroplast rbcL and ndhF data. Am J Bot 90:107–115
Li D-Z, Gao L-M, Li H-T et al (2011) Comparative analysis of a large dataset indicates that internal transcribed spacer (ITS) should be incorporated into the core barcode for seed plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:19641–19646
Li CP, Yu ZG, Han GS, Chu KH (2012a) Analyzing multi-locus plant barcoding datasets with a composition vector method based on adjustable weighted distance. PLoS ONE 7:e42154
Li H-Q, Chen J-Y, Wang S, Xiong S-Z (2012b) Evaluation of six candidate DNA barcoding loci in Ficus (Moraceae) of China. Mol Ecol Resour 12:783–790
Liu Z, Zeng X, Yang D et al (2012) Identification of medicinal vines by ITS2 using complementary discrimination methods. J Ethnopharmacol 141:242–249
Mace GM (2004) The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:711–719
Margules CR, Austin MP, Mollison D, Smith F (1994) Biological models for monitoring species decline: the construction and use of data bases [and discussion]. Philos Trans R Soc London Series B Biol Sci 344:69–75
McCune B, Dey JP, Peck JE et al (1997) Repeatability of community data: species richness versus gradient scores in large-scale lichen studies. Bryologist 100:40–46
Murdoch W, Polasky S, Wilson KA et al (2007) Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Biol Conserv 139:375–388
Newmaster SG, Ragupathy S (2013) Flora Ontario Integrated Botanical Information System (FOIBIS). BIO/OAC Herbarium, Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, Guelph. [http://www.uoguelph.ca/foibis]
Newmaster SG, Fazekas AJ, Ragupathy S (2006) DNA barcoding in land plants: evaluation of rbcL in a multigene tiered approach. Botany 341:335–341
Newmaster SG, Fazekas AJ, Steeves RAD, Janovec J (2008) Testing candidate plant barcode regions in the Myristicaceae. Mol Ecol Resour 8:480–490
Newmaster SG, Ragupathy S, Dhivya S et al (2013a) Genomic valorization of the fine scale classification of small millet landraces in southern India. Genome 56:123–127
Newmaster SG, Grguric M, Shanmughanandhan D et al (2013b) DNA barcoding detects contamination and substitution in North American herbal products. BMC Med 11:222
Prendergast JR, Quinn RM, Lawton JH et al (1993) Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365:335–337
Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN (2007) BOLD: The barcode of life data system. Mol Ecol Notes 7:355–364. http://www.boldsystems.org
Resh V, Unzicker J (1975) Water quality monitoring and aquatic organisms: the importance of species identification. Water Pollut Control Fed 47:9–19
Sandionigi A, Galimberti A, Labra M et al (2012) Analytical approaches for DNA barcoding data-how to find a way for plants? Plant Biosyst 146:803–813
Schemske DW, Husband BC, Ruckelshaus MH et al (1994) Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75:584–606
Schuster SC (2008) Next-generation sequencing transforms today’s biology. Nat Methods 5:16–18
Scott WA, Hallam CJ (2003) Assessing species misidentification rates through quality assurance of vegetation monitoring. Plant Ecol 165:101–115
Su JC, Debinski DM, Jakubauskas ME, Kindscher K (2004) Beyond species richness: community similarity as a measure of cross-taxon congruence for coarse-filter conservation. Conserv Biol 18:167–173
Tautz D, Arctander P, Minelli A et al (2003) A plea for DNA taxonomy. Trends Ecol Evol 18:70–74
ter Braak CJF (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67:1167–1179
Ter Braak, CJF, Smilauer P (2012) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide: software for canonical community ordination (version 5.0). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca
Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE et al (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148
Vences M, Thomas M, van der Meijden A et al (2005) Comparative performance of the 16S rRNA gene in DNA barcoding of amphibians. Front Zool 2:5
von Cräutlein M, Korpelainen H, Pietiläinen M, Rikkinen J (2011) DNA barcoding: a tool for improved taxon identification and detection of species diversity. Biodivers Conserv 20:373–389
Yao H, Song J, Liu C et al (2010) Use of ITS2 region as the universal DNA barcode for plants and animals. PLoS ONE 5:e13102
Zhang C-Y, Wang F-Y, Yan H-F et al (2012) Testing DNA barcoding in closely related groups of Lysimachia L. (Myrsinaceae). Mol Ecol Resour 12:98–108
Acknowledgments
The authors thank W. Bell and the Ontario Forest Research Institute for assistance with fieldwork, N. Webster for assistance with morphology-based specimen identification, and S. Ragupathy for assistance with DNA barcoding. SGN was supported with Grants from NSERC CRD, OMNR, Forest Ecosystem Co-op, and the Forest Research Partnership.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Dirk Sven Schmeller.
About this article
Cite this article
Thompson, K.A., Newmaster, S.G. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Molecular taxonomic tools provide more accurate estimates of species richness at less cost than traditional morphology-based taxonomic practices in a vegetation survey. Biodivers Conserv 23, 1411–1424 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0672-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0672-z