Meta‐analysis shows both congruence and complementarity of DNA and eDNA metabarcoding to traditional methods for biological community assessment

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>DNA metabarcoding is increasingly used for the assessment of aquatic communities, and numerous studies have investigated the consistency of this technique with traditional morpho‐taxonomic approaches. These individual studies have used DNA metabarcoding to assess diversity and community structure of aquatic organisms both in marine and freshwater systems globally over the last decade. However, a systematic analysis of the comparability and effectiveness of DNA‐based community assessment across all of these studies has hitherto been lacking. Here, we performed the first meta‐analysis of available studies comparing traditional methods and DNA metabarcoding to measure and assess biological diversity of key aquatic groups, including plankton, microphytobentos, macroinvertebrates, and fish. Across 215 data sets, we found that DNA metabarcoding provides richness estimates that are globally consistent to those obtained using traditional methods, both at local and regional scale. DNA metabarcoding also generates species inventories that are highly congruent with traditional methods for fish. Contrastingly, species inventories of plankton, microphytobenthos and macroinvertebrates obtained by DNA metabarcoding showed pronounced differences to traditional methods, missing some taxa but at the same time detecting otherwise overseen diversity. The method is generally sufficiently advanced to study the composition of fish communities and replace more invasive traditional methods. For smaller organisms, like macroinvertebrates, plankton and microphytobenthos, DNA metabarcoding may continue to give complementary rather than identical estimates compared to traditional approaches. Systematic and comparable data collection will increase the understanding of different aspects of this complementarity, and increase the effectiveness of the method and adequate interpretation of the results.</jats:p>