LAUSR

Abstract Biomonitoring approaches and investigations of many ecological questions require assessments of the biodiversity of a given habitat. Small organisms, ranging from protozoans to metazoans, are of great ecological importance and comprise a major share of the planet's biodiversity but they are extremely difficult to identify, due to their minute body sizes and indistinct structures. Thus, most biodiversity studies that include small organisms draw on several methods for species delimitation, ranging from traditional microscopy to molecular techniques. In this study, we compared the efficiency of these methods by analyzing a community of nematodes. Specifically, we evaluated the performances of traditional morphological identification, single‐specimen barcoding (Sanger sequencing), and metabarcoding in the identification of 1500 nematodes from sediment samples. The molecular approaches were based on the analysis of the 28S ribosomal large and 18S small subunits (LSU and SSU). The morphological analysis resulted in the determination of 22 nematode species. Barcoding identified a comparable number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) based on 28S rDNA (n = 20) and fewer OTUs based on 18S rDNA (n = 12). Metabarcoding identified a higher OTU number but fewer amplicon sequence variants (AVSs) (n = 48 OTUs, n = 17 ASVs for 28S rDNA, and n = 31 OTUs, n = 6 ASVs for 18S rDNA). Between the three approaches (morphology, barcoding, and metabarcoding), only three species (13.6%) were shared. This lack of taxonomic resolution hinders reliable community identifications to the species level. Further database curation will ensure the effective use of molecular species identification.