Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T17:43:18.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Next generation biodiversity analysis

from Part II - Next Generation Biodiversity Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2016

Mehrdad Hajibabaei
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Ian King
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Peter D. Olson
Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, London
Joseph Hughes
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
James A. Cotton
Affiliation:
Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Introduction – facing challenges

Biodiversity, in the words of E. O. Wilson, is ‘in one sense, everything’ (Wilson, 1997). This is the most catholic of the numerous definitions that various authors have given of ‘biological diversity’ or ‘biodiversity’. To give some idea of the most common constituents of these definitions, Figure 8.1 shows a word cloud based on 22 definitions, with the size of the word being proportional to its frequency in the definitions included. Clearly, species and ecosystems play a central role in what we call ‘biodiversity’. However, our inability to measure and document – even to define – biodiversity's basic units (i.e. species) has resulted in orders of magnitude difference in our best estimates of Earth's biotic diversity (May 1992; 2011; Mora et al. 2011; Pimm et al. 2014).

Biodiversity and related studies have often focused on a narrow spectrum of species of mainly charismatic groups (Clark and May 2002; Pawar 2003; Chariton et al. 2010a). This is understandable, though not excusable, given the challenges inherent in studies including a greater variety of species and vast ecosystems. In an ambitious, taxonomically diverse (but not comprehensive) inventory of a tropical forest in Cameroon, Lawton and colleagues (1998) found that the effort required for identification ranged from 50 ‘scientist-hours’ required to assign all morphospecies to known species for birds, to 6000 ‘scientist-hours’ to assign 10% of individual nematodes to species (over 90% of morphospecies could not be assigned to known species). In another study, the sampling and identification time required for 15 different taxa at five tropical sites was 18 200 person-hours (Barlow et al. 2007; Gardner et al. 2008). In fact, projects that aim at large-scale documentation of biodiversity, or bioinventories, have been faced with a serious bottleneck in the timely identification of specimens. Dan Janzen and Winnie Hallwachs, who run one of the largest and longest bioinventory efforts located in the Área de Conservación Guanacaste (ACG), Northwest Costa Rica, have been using molecular tools such as DNA barcoding (see below) to address this bottleneck (Janzen et al. 2009). Additionally, the need for more efficient approaches for biodiversity analysis is reflected in many situations where timely and accurate characterization of biota is critical (see below).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Astrin, J. J., Zhao, X. and Misof, B. (2013). The importance of biobanking in molecular taxonomy, with proposed definitions for vouchers in a molecular context. Zookeys, 365, 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, D. J., Baker, C. J. O., Brua, R., et al. (2011). Towards a knowledge infrastructure for traits-based ecological risk assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7, 209–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, D. J. and Hajibabaei, M. (2012). Biomonitoring 2.0: a new paradigm in ecosystem assessment made possible by next-generation DNA sequencing. Molecular Ecology, 21, 2039–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, J., Gardner, T. A., Araujo, I. S., et al. (2007). Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 18555–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bassar, R. D., Marshall, M. C., Lopez-Sepulcre, A., et al. (2010). Local adaptation in Trinidadian guppies alters ecosystem processes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 3616–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W. and Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 15, 365–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bienert, F., De Danieli, S., Miquel, C., et al. (2012). Tracking earthworm communities from soil DNA. Molecular Ecology, 21, 2017–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bik, H. M., Porazinska, D. L., Creer, S., Caporaso, J. G., Knight, R. and Thomas, W. K. (2012). Sequencing our way towards understanding global eukaryotic biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27, 233–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilton, D. T., McAbendroth, L., Bedford, A. and Ramsay, P. M. (2006). How wide to cast the net? Cross-taxon congruence of species richness, community similarity and indicator taxa in ponds. Freshwater Biology, 51, 578–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowser, A. K., Diamond, A. W. and Addison, J. A. (2013). From puffins to plankton, a DNA-based analysis of a seabird food chain in the northern Gulf of Maine. PLoS One, 8, e83152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CBOL Plant Working Group (2009). A DNA barcode for land plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 12794–7.
Chariton, A. A., Batley, G. and Hardy, C. M. (2010a). Improving aquatic ecological assessments. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 6, 187–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chariton, A. A., Court, L. N., Hartley, D. M., Colloff, M. J. and Hardy, C. M. (2010b). Ecological assessment of estuarine sediments by pyrosequencing eukaryotic ribosomal DNA. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 233–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, M. W., Cowan, R. S., Hollingsworth, P. M., et al. (2007). A proposal for a standardised protocol to barcode all land plants. Taxon, 56, 295–9.Google Scholar
Chavan, V. and Penev, L. (2011). The data paper, a mechanism to incentivize data publishing in biodiversity science. BMC Bioinformatics, 12 (Suppl 15), S2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chenuil, A. (2006). Choosing the right molecular genetic markers for studying biodiversity, from molecular evolution to practical aspects. Genetica, 127, 101–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Clare, E. L. (2014). Molecular detection of trophic interactions, emerging trends, distinct advantages, significant considerations and conservation applications. Evolutionary Applications, 7, 1144–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, J. A. and May, R. M. (2002). Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science, 297, 191–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coissac, E., Riaz, T. and Puillandre, N. (2012). Bioinformatic challenges for DNA metabarcoding of plants and animals. Molecular Ecology, 21, 1834–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Creer, S. (2010). Second-generation sequencing derived insights into the temporal biodiversity dynamics of freshwater protists. Molecular Ecology, 19, 2829–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Creer, S., Fonseca, V. G., Porazinska, D. L., et al. (2010). Ultrasequencing of the meiofaunal biosphere: practice, pitfalls and promises. Molecular Ecology, 19, 4–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darling, J. A. and Mahon, A. R. (2011). From molecules to management, adopting DNA-based methods for monitoring biological invasions in aquatic environments. Environmental Research, 111, 978–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. London, John Murray.Google Scholar
Davies, N., Field, D., Amaral-Zettler, L., et al. (2014). The founding charter of the Genomic Observatories Network. GigaScience, 3, 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, N., Meyer, C., Gilbert, J., et al. (2012). A call for an international network of genomic observatories (GOs). GigaScience, 1, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ley, P., Tandingan De Ley, I., Morris, K., et al. (2005). An integrated approach to fast and informative morphological vouchering of nematodes for applications in molecular barcoding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B-Biological Sciences, 360, 1945–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell'Anno, A. and Danovaro, R. (2005). Extracellular DNA plays a key role in deep-sea ecosystem functioning. Science, 309, 2179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N. (1992). Systematics, Ecology, and the Biodiversity Crisis. New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Elton, C. S. (1958). The Ecology of Invasions by Plants and Animals. New York, John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ficetola, G. F., Miaud, C., Pompanon, F. and Taberlet, P. (2008). Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples. Biology Letters, 4, 423–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finnoff, D., Shogren, J. F., Leung, B. and Lodge, D. M. (2007). Take a risk, preferring prevention over control of biological invaders. Ecological Economics, 62, 216–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleishman, E., Thomson, J. R., Mac Nally, R., Murphy, D. D. and Fay, J. P. (2005). Using indicator species to predict species richness of multiple taxonomic groups. Conservation Biology, 19, 1125–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca, V.G., Nichols, B., Lallias, D., et al. (2012). Sample richness and genetic diversity as drivers of chimera formation in nSSU metagenetic analysis. Nucleic Acids Research, 40, e66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, T. A., Barlow, J., Araujo, I. S., et al. (2008). The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. Ecology Letters, 11, 139–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaston, K. J. (2000). Biodiversity, higher taxon richness. Progress in Physical Geography, 24, 117–27.Google Scholar
Gibson, J., Shokralla, S., Porter, T. M., et al. (2014). Simultaneous assessment of the macrobiome and microbiome in a bulk sample of tropical arthropods through DNA metasystematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 8007–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, A., Stombaugh, J., Lauber, C. L., Fierer, N. and Knight, R. (2012). SitePainter, a tool for exploring biogeographical patterns. Bioinformatics, 28, 436–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guralnick, R. and Hill, A. (2009). Biodiversity informatics, automated approaches for documenting global biodiversity patterns and processes. Bioinformatics, 25, 421–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hairston, J. N. G. and Hairston, S. N. G. (1993). Cause-effect relationships in energy flow, trophic structure, and interspecific interactions. The American Naturalist, 142, 379–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajibabaei, M., deWaard, J. R., Ivanova, N. V., et al. (2005). Critical factors for assembling a high volume of DNA barcodes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B-Biological Sciences, 360, 1959–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajibabaei, M., Shokralla, S., Zhou, X., Singer, G. A. and Baird, D. J. (2011). Environmental barcoding: a next-generation sequencing approach for biomonitoring applications using river benthosPLoS One, 6, e17497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajibabaei, M. and Singer, G. A. C. (2009). Googling DNA sequences on the World Wide Web. BMC Bioinformatics, 10, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajibabaei, M., Singer, G. A., Hebert, P. D. and Hickey, D. A. (2007). DNA barcoding: how it complements taxonomy, molecular phylogenetics and population genetics. Trends in Genetics, 23, 167–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajibabaei, M., Spall, J.L., Shokralla, S. and van Konynenburg, S. (2012). Assessing biodiversity of a freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate community through non-destructive environmental barcoding of DNA from preservative ethanol. BMC Ecology, 12, 28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampton, S. E., Tewksbury, J. J. and Strasser, C. A. (2012). Ecological data in the Information Age. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebert, P. D., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L. and deWaard, J. R. (2003a). Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B-Biological Sciences, 270, 313–21.Google ScholarPubMed
Hebert, P. D., Ratnasingham, S. and deWaard, J. R. (2003b). Barcoding animal life, cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B-Biological Sciences, 270, S96–99.Google ScholarPubMed
Huttenhower, C., Gevers, D., Knight, R., et al. (2012). Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature, 486, 207–14.Google Scholar
Janzen, D. H., Hallwachs, W., Blandin, P., et al. (2009). Integration of DNA barcoding into an ongoing inventory of complex tropical biodiversity. Molecular Ecology Resources, 9, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jetz, W., McPherson, J. M. and Guralnick, R. P. (2012). Integrating biodiversity distribution knowledge: toward a global map of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27, 151–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadnikov, V. V., Mardanov, A. V., Beletsky, A. V., et al. (2012). Microbial community structure in methane hydrate-bearing sediments of freshwater Lake Baikal. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 79, 348–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kessler, M., Abrahamczyk, S., Bos, M., et al. (2011). Cost-effectiveness of plant and animal biodiversity indicators in tropical forest and agroforest habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 330–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, I. (2009). The need for the incorporation of phylogeny in the measurement of biological diversity, with special reference to ecosystem functioning research. BioEssays, 31, 107–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knapp, M. and Hofreiter, M. (2010). Next generation sequencing of ancient DNA, requirements, strategies and perspectives. Genes, 1, 227–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, J. H., Bignell, D. E., Bolton, B., et al. (1998). Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature, 391, 72–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leininger, S., Urich, T., Schloter, M., et al. (2006). Archaea predominate among ammonia-oxidizing prokaryotes in soils. Nature, 442, 806–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ley, R. E., Turnbaugh, P. J., Klein, S. and Gordon, J. I. (2006). Human gut microbes associated with obesity. Nature, 444, 1022–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loewe, L. (2009). A framework for evolutionary systems biology. BMC Systems Biology, 3, 27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., et al. (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294, 804–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magurran, A. E. and Dornelas, M. (2010). Biological diversity in a changing world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B-Biological Sciences, 365, 3593–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markmann, M. and Tautz, D. (2005). Reverse taxonomy, an approach towards determining the diversity of meiobenthic organisms based on ribosomal RNA signature sequences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B-Biological Sciences, 360, 1917–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mateo, N., Nader, W. and Tamayo, G. (2001). Bioprospecting. In Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Vol. 1, ed. Levin, S. A.. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
May, R. M. (1972). Will a large complex system be stable?Nature, 238, 413–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, R. M. (1992). How many species inhabit the earth?Scientific American, 267, 42–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, R. M. (2002). The future of biological diversity in a crowded world. Current Science, 82, 1325–31.Google Scholar
May, R. M. (2011). Why should we be concerned about loss of biodiversity? Comptes Rendus Biologies, 334, 346–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGeoch, M. A., Van Rensburg, B. J. and Botes, A. (2002). The verification and application of bioindicators, a case study of dung beetles in a savanna ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 661–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, M. (2005). Genomes, phylogeny, and evolutionary systems biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 6630–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mellin, C., Delean, S., Caley, J., et al. (2011). Effectiveness of biological surrogates for predicting patterns of marine biodiversity, a global meta-analysis. PLoS One, 6, e20141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michener, W. K. and Jones, M. B. (2012). Ecoinformatics, supporting ecology as a data-intensive science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. and Worm, B. (2011). How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean?PLoS Biology, 9, e1001127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naeem, S., Loreau, M. and Inchausti, P. (2002). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, the emergence of a synthetic ecological framework. In Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning, Synthesis and Perspective. ed. Loreau, M., Naeem, S. and Inchausti, P.. Oxford, Oxford University Press; pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
Nilsson, R. H., Rybergc, M., Sjökvista, E. and Abarenkov, K. (2011). Rethinking taxon sampling in the light of environmental sequencing. Cladistics, 27, 197–203.Google Scholar
Norris, K. (2012). Biodiversity in the context of ecosystem services: the applied need for systems approaches. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B-Biological Sciences, 367, 191–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odum, E. P. (1953) Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Parks, D. H., Mankowski, T., Zangooei, S., et al. (2013). GenGIS 2, Geospatial analysis of traditional and genetic biodiversity, with new gradient algorithms and an extensible plugin framework. PLoS One, 8, 7, e69885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parr, C. S., Guralnick, R., Cellinese, N. and Page, R. D. (2012). Evolutionary informatics, unifying knowledge about the diversity of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27, 94–103.Google ScholarPubMed
Pawar, S. (2003). Taxonomic chauvinism and the methodologically challenged. BioScience, 53, 861–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawlowski, J., Christen, R., Lecroq, B., Bachar, D., Reza Shahbazkia, H., Amaral-Zettler, L. and Guillou, L. (2011). Eukaryotic richness in the abyss: insights from pyrotag sequencing. PLoS One, 6, e18169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, D.L. (1994). Selecting indicator taxa for the quantitative assessment of biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B-Biological Sciences, 345, 75–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pimm, S.L., Jenkins, C.N., Abell, R., et al. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science, 344, 1246752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pleijel, F., Jondelius, U., Norlinder, E., et al. (2008). Phylogenies without roots? A plea for the use of vouchers in molecular phylogenetic studies. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 48, 369–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poinar, H. N., Schwarz, C., Qi, J., et al. (2006). Metagenomics to paleogenomics: large-scale sequencing of mammoth DNA. Science, 311, 392–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porazinska, D. L., Sung, W., Giblin-Davis, R. M. and Thomas, W. K. (2010). Reproducibility of read numbers in high-throughput sequencing analysis of nematode community composition and structure. Molecular Ecology Resources, 10, 666–76.Google ScholarPubMed
Puillandre, N., Bouchet, P., Boisselier-Dubayle, M. C., et al. (2012). New taxonomy and old collections, integrating DNA barcoding into the collection curation process. Molecular Ecology Resources, 12, 396–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qin, J., Li, R., Raes, J., et al. (2010). A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature, 464, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quince, C., Lanzen, A., Curtis, T. P., et al. (2009). Accurate determination of microbial diversity from 454 pyrosequencing data. Nature Methods, 6, 639–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramírez, O., Gigli, E., Bover, P., et al. (2009). Paleogenomics in a temperate environment: shotgun sequencing from an extinct mediterranean caprine. PLoS One, 4, e5670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razgour, O., Clare, E. L., Zeale, M. R., et al. (2011). High-throughput sequencing offers insight into mechanisms of resource partitioning in cryptic bat species. Ecology and Evolution, 1, 556–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodrigues, A. S. L. and Brooks, T. M. (2007). Shortcuts for biodiversity conservation planning: the effectiveness of surrogates. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 38, 713–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusch, D. B., Halpern, A. L., Sutton, G., et al. (2007). The “Sorcerer II” global ocean sampling expedition: northwest Atlantic through eastern tropical Pacific. PLoS Biology, 5, e77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarkar, I. N. and Trizna, M. (2011). The Barcode of Life Data Portal, bridging the biodiversity informatics divide for DNA barcoding. PLoS One, 6, e14689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scholes, R. J., Walters, M., Turak, E., et al. (2012). Building a global observing system for biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 139–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, M. B., Lo, C. C. and Chain, P. S. (2012). Next generation sequencing and bioinformatic bottlenecks: the current state of metagenomic data analysis. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 23, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulze, E.-D. and Mooney, H. A. (1993). Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning. New York, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifert, K. A. (2009). Progress towards DNA barcoding of fungi. Molecular Ecology Resources, 9, 83–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, V. K., Kumar, N., Prakash, T. and Taylor, T. D. (2010). MetaBioME, a database to explore commercially useful enzymes in metagenomic datasets. Nucleic Acids Research, 38, D468–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shokralla, S., Porter, T. M., Dobosz, R., et al. (2015). Massively parallel multiplex DNA sequencing for specimen identification using an Illumina MiSeq platform. Scientific Reports, 5, 9687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shokralla, S., Spall, J. L., Gibson, J. F. and Hajibabaei, M. (2012). Next-generation DNA sequencing technologies for environmental DNA research. Molecular Ecology, 21, 1794–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shokralla, S., Zhou, X., Janzen, D. H., et al. (2011). Pyrosequencing for mini-barcoding of fresh and old museum specimens. PLoS One, 6, e21252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M. A., Eveleigh, E. S., McCann, K. S., et al. (2011). Barcoding a quantified food web: crypsis, concepts, ecology and hypotheses. PLoS One, 6, e14424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sogin, M. L., Morrison, H. G., Huber, J. A., et al. (2006). Microbial diversity in the deep sea and the underexplored “rare biosphere”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 12115–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoeck, T., Bass, D., Nebel, M., et al. (2010). Multiple marker parallel tag environmental DNA sequencing reveals a highly complex eukaryotic community in marine anoxic water. Molecular Ecology, 19, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuart, S. N., Wilson, E. O., McNeely, J. A., Mittermeier, R. A. and Rodríguez, J. P. (2010). The Barometer of Life. Science, 328, 177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taberlet, P., Prud'homme, S. M., Campione, E., et al. (2012). Soil sampling and isolation of extracellular DNA from large amount of starting material suitable for metabarcoding studies. Molecular Ecology, 21, 1816–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomsen, P. F., Kielgast, J., Iversen, L. L., et al. (2011). Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. Molecular Ecology, 21, 2565–73.Google ScholarPubMed
Tilman, D. and Downing, J. A. (1994). Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature, 367, 363–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. and Nowak, M. A. (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature, 371, 65–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D., Reich, P. B., Knops, J., et al. (2001). Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science, 294, 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D., Wedin, D. and Knops, J. (1996). Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature, 379, 718–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treangen, T. J. and Salzberg, S. L. (2012). Repetitive DNA and next-generation sequencing: computational challenges and solutions. Nature Reviews Genetics, 13, 36–46.Google Scholar
Wieczorek, J., Bloom, D., Guralnick, R., et al. (2012). Darwin Core: an evolving community-developed biodiversity data standard. PLoS One, 7, e29715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willis, A. J. (1997). The ecosystem: an evolving concept viewed historically. Functional Ecology, 11, 268–71.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1997). Introduction. In Biodiversity II, Understanding and Protecting our Biological Resources, ed. Reaka-Kudla, M. L., Wilson, D. E. and Wilson, E. O.. Washington, DC, Joseph Henry Press; pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Wong, P., Wiley, E., Johnson, W., et al. (2012). Tissue sampling methods and standards for vertebrate genomics. GigaScience, 1, 8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ye, L., Amberg, J., Chapman, D., Gaikowski, M. and Liu, W-T. (2014). Fish gut microbiota analysis differentiates physiology and behavior of invasive Asian carp and indigenous American fish. ISME Journal, 8, 541–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zinger, L., Amaral-Zettler, L. A., Fuhrman, J. A., et al. (2011). Global patterns of bacterial beta-diversity in seafloor and seawater ecosystems. PLoS One, 6, e24570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×