Microscopy versus automated imaging flow cytometry for detecting and identifying rare zooplankton
- 344 Downloads
Many zooplankton surveys underestimate species richness owing to difficulties in detecting rare species. This problem is particularly acute for studies designed to detect non-indigenous species (NIS) when their abundance is low. Our goal was to test the difference in detection efficiency between traditional microscopy and image analysis (i.e., FlowCAM). We hypothesized that detection of rare species should become easier as they become abundant in a sample, if they are morphologically distinct, or if counting effort increased. We spiked different densities of Cladocera into zooplankton samples from Lake Ontario to simulate rarity, and assessed detection rate. Our results indicated that there was a positive relationship between the probability of finding at least one spiked NIS and its abundance, distinctiveness, and counting effort employed. FlowCAM processed more subsamples, though morphologically similar taxa were distinguished more readily with microscopy. The expected probability for detecting one individual spiked into a sample with ~ 8000 individuals (300 counted) was 3.60%, though observed values were considerably lower using both classical microscopy (4.58 × 10−3 to 1.00%) and FlowCAM (0.10 to 3.00%). Our experiments highlight that many plankton ecologists use subsample counts too low to detect rare native species and NIS, resulting in low species richness estimates and false negatives.
KeywordsInvasive species Early detection Risk assessment Taxonomy FlowCAM Great Lakes Hamilton Harbour
We thank Colin van Overdijk for assistance with field work, Emma DeRoy for assisting with spiking zooplankton, Drs. Linda Weiss and Marina Manca for providing spiked species, and Joelle Pecz and Sarah-Jayne Collins for assistance with sample processing. Financial support was provided by an NSERC CREATE (Multiple Stressors and Cumulative Effects in the Great Lakes to Paul Sibley) training grant, Fluid Imaging, and by a Canada Research Chair and NSERC Discovery Grant to HJM.
- Balcer, M. D., N. L. Korda & S. I. Dodson, 1984. Zooplankton of the Great Lakes: A Guide to the Identification and Ecology of the Common Crustacean Species. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Google Scholar
- Fluid Imaging Technologies Inc., 2011. FlowCAM manual version 3.0 [online]. http://www.ihb.cas.cn/fxcszx/fxcs_xgxz/201203/P020120329576952031804.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2016.
- Haney, J. F., Aliberti M. A., Allan E., Allard S., Bauer D. J., and Beagen W. et al., 2013. An-image-based key to the zooplankton of North America. Version 5.0. University of New Hampshire Center for Freshwater Biology. http://cfb.unh.edu/cfbkey/html/references.htm.
- Johnson, W. S. & D. M. Allen, 2005. Zooplankton of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, A Guide to Their Identification and Ecology. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team, 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.Google Scholar
- Smirnov, N. N., and B. V. Timms, 1983. A revision of the Australian Cladocera (Crustacea). Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 1. P1–132Google Scholar
- Ward, H. B., G. C. Whipple & W. T. Edmondson (eds), 1918. Fresh-water Biology, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- Witty, L. M., 2004. Practical guide to identifying freshwater crustacean zooplankton, 2nd ed. Cooperative Freshwater Ecology Unit, Greater Sudbury.Google Scholar
- Zhan, A., M. Hulak, F. Sylvester, X. Huang, A. A. Adebayo, C. L. Abbott, S. J. Adamowicz, D. D. Heath, M. E. Cristescu & H. J. MacIsaac, 2013. High sensitivity of 454 pyrosequencing for detection of rare species in aquatic communities. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(6): 558–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhan, A., W. Xiong, S. He & H. J. MacIsaac, 2014. Influence of artifact removal on rare species recovery in natural complex communities using high throughput sequencing. PLoS ONE 9: 1–7.Google Scholar