212
Z. A. Danial Hariz and M. A. Noor Adelyna
1 Introduction
Biodiversity epitomizes the diversity of different organisms with their functions and
relationship within an ecosystem. In order to understand the biodiversity of a certain ecosystem, assessments are crucial in recognizing the key components of the
ecosystem. Biodiversity assessments or surveys are critical to monitor and assess
the health of ecosystems and the species within them. Biodiversity assessment usually is done using conventional identification methods which involves classifying
morphological characters and utilizing taxonomic keys for species identification.
The morphology-based biodiversity assessment can be invasive, time consuming
and financially expensive. Additionally, the limitation of experienced taxonomist
and a proper developed species identification keys are the major challenges in this
method of assessment. It is impossible to develop conservation plans and long-term
management of an ecosystem without knowing what species are involved.
Anthropogenic disturbances are causing ongoing decline in biodiversity globally
(Schmeller et al. 2017). In the past five centuries, human-driven global change has
started the sixth mass extinction, which is more severe than the previously feared and
massive five mass extinctions recorded in Earth’s history (Barnosky et al. 2011). The
rapid loss of biodiversity that has occurred primarily affecting both human health
and the sustainable future of the planet. Within the last century, the rate of global
biodiversity continues to decline significantly with this loss being greatest in freshwater ecosystems despite efforts to prevent such loss (Collen et al. 2014; Turak et al.
2016). In order to prevent further declines, many jurisdictions have enacted regulation to protect species at risk and their habitats. This is being done through collecting
information regarding the species distribution, diversity and biology through regular
biological monitoring.
Presently, there are several commonly practiced biological monitoring methods
which apply specific designed for a specific group of organisms which includes
combination of both observational and invasive capture methods. However, these
methods of assessments were restricted by high cost, time consuming and limited
number of trained labour (Darling and Mahon 2011). Likewise, the invasive nature of
the conventional capture-based surveys will increase the probability of predation risk
to the organism despite probably damaging the entire ecosystem (Shaw et al. 2017).
Furthermore, an ongoing decrease in the number of taxonomic expertise and the
non-standardised skill levels of different taxonomist may also hinder the traditional
morphological identification-based methodologies despite might introducing bias in
the assessment (Shaw et al. 2016).
Existing biodiversity assessment methods require improvement in order to monitor and protect the whole biodiversity in general especially for the future of freshwater
biodiversity and resources. In turn to bear the improvement, more detailed, extensive
and rapid surveys are crucial. Nevertheless, such advances cannot be made without
increasing the costs and input time with effort in the conventional methods. Hence,
a new, time and cost-effective tool has to be developed in order to support the lim-
Z. A. Danial Hariz and M. A. Noor Adelyna
1 Introduction
Biodiversity epitomizes the diversity of different organisms with their functions and
relationship within an ecosystem. In order to understand the biodiversity of a certain ecosystem, assessments are crucial in recognizing the key components of the
ecosystem. Biodiversity assessments or surveys are critical to monitor and assess
the health of ecosystems and the species within them. Biodiversity assessment usually is done using conventional identification methods which involves classifying
morphological characters and utilizing taxonomic keys for species identification.
The morphology-based biodiversity assessment can be invasive, time consuming
and financially expensive. Additionally, the limitation of experienced taxonomist
and a proper developed species identification keys are the major challenges in this
method of assessment. It is impossible to develop conservation plans and long-term
management of an ecosystem without knowing what species are involved.
Anthropogenic disturbances are causing ongoing decline in biodiversity globally
(Schmeller et al. 2017). In the past five centuries, human-driven global change has
started the sixth mass extinction, which is more severe than the previously feared and
massive five mass extinctions recorded in Earth’s history (Barnosky et al. 2011). The
rapid loss of biodiversity that has occurred primarily affecting both human health
and the sustainable future of the planet. Within the last century, the rate of global
biodiversity continues to decline significantly with this loss being greatest in freshwater ecosystems despite efforts to prevent such loss (Collen et al. 2014; Turak et al.
2016). In order to prevent further declines, many jurisdictions have enacted regulation to protect species at risk and their habitats. This is being done through collecting
information regarding the species distribution, diversity and biology through regular
biological monitoring.
Presently, there are several commonly practiced biological monitoring methods
which apply specific designed for a specific group of organisms which includes
combination of both observational and invasive capture methods. However, these
methods of assessments were restricted by high cost, time consuming and limited
number of trained labour (Darling and Mahon 2011). Likewise, the invasive nature of
the conventional capture-based surveys will increase the probability of predation risk
to the organism despite probably damaging the entire ecosystem (Shaw et al. 2017).
Furthermore, an ongoing decrease in the number of taxonomic expertise and the
non-standardised skill levels of different taxonomist may also hinder the traditional
morphological identification-based methodologies despite might introducing bias in
the assessment (Shaw et al. 2016).
Existing biodiversity assessment methods require improvement in order to monitor and protect the whole biodiversity in general especially for the future of freshwater
biodiversity and resources. In turn to bear the improvement, more detailed, extensive
and rapid surveys are crucial. Nevertheless, such advances cannot be made without
increasing the costs and input time with effort in the conventional methods. Hence,
a new, time and cost-effective tool has to be developed in order to support the lim-