Key factors to consider in the use of environmental DNA metabarcoding to monitor terrestrial ecological restoration

Ecological restoration of terrestrial environments is a globally important process to combat the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Holistic monitoring of restored biota and active management of restoration is necessary to improve restoration processes and outcomes, and provide evidence to stakeholders that targets are being achieved. Increasingly, environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding is used as a restoration monitoring tool because it is able to generate biodiversity data rapidly, accurately, non-destructively, and reliably, on a wide breadth of organisms from soil microbes to mammals. The overall objective of this review is to discuss the key factors to consider in the use of environmental DNA for monitoring of restored terrestrial ecosystems, hopefully improving monitoring, and ultimately, restoration outcomes. We identified that the majority of eDNA based studies of ecosystem restoration are currently conducted in Europe, North America, and Australia, and that almost half of total studies were published in 2021-22. Soil was the most popular sample substrate, soil microbial communities the most targeted taxa, and forests the most studied ecosystem. We suggest there is no 'one size fits all' approach to restoration monitoring using eDNA, and discuss survey design. Factors to consider include substrate selection, sample collection and storage, assay selection, and data interpretation, all of which require careful planning to obtain reliable, and accurate information that can be used for restoration monitoring and decision making. We explore future directions for research and argue that eDNA metabarcoding can be a useful tool in the restoration monitoring 'toolkit', but requires informed application and greater accessibility to data by a wide spectrum of stakeholders.

Strategies for sample labelling and library preparation in DNA metabarcoding studies

Metabarcoding of DNA extracted from environmental or bulk specimen samples is increasingly used to profile biota in basic and applied biodiversity research because of its targeted nature that allows sequencing of genetic markers from many samples in parallel. To achieve this, PCR amplification is carried out with primers designed to target a taxonomically informative marker within a taxonomic group, and sample-specific nucleotide identifiers are added to the amplicons prior to sequencing. The latter enables assignment of the sequences back to the samples they originated from. Nucleotide identifiers can be added during the metabarcoding PCR and during "library preparation", that is, when amplicons are prepared for sequencing. Different strategies to achieve this labelling exist. All have advantages, challenges and limitations, some of which can lead to misleading results, and in the worst case compromise the fidelity of the metabarcoding data. Given the range of questions addressed using metabarcoding, ensuring that data generation is robust and fit for the chosen purpose is critically important for practitioners seeking to employ metabarcoding for biodiversity assessments. Here, we present an overview of the three main workflows for sample-specific labelling and library preparation in metabarcoding studies on Illumina sequencing platforms; one-step PCR, two-step PCR, and tagged PCR. Further, we distill the key considerations for researchers seeking to select an appropriate metabarcoding strategy for their specific study. Ultimately, by gaining insights into the consequences of different metabarcoding workflows, we hope to further consolidate the power of metabarcoding as a tool to assess biodiversity across a range of applications.