50%, not great, not terrible: Pan-European gap-analysis shows the real status of the DNA barcode reference libraries in two aquatic invertebrate groups and points the way ahead.

The essential key to routine molecular species identification (DNA barcoding/metabarcoding) is the existence of an error-free DNA barcode reference library providing full coverage of all species. Published studies generally state the need to produce more barcodes, and control their quality, but unfortunately, the number of barcoded species is still low. However, to initiate real progress, we need to know where the gaps lie, how big they are and why they persist. Our aims were to draw and understand the current state of knowledge regarding species diversity, distribution, and barcode coverage, and offer solutions for improvement. In this study, we used two groups of aquatic insects, beetles and true bugs. We have compiled and critically evaluated an essentially complete and up-to-date European list, containing 1527 species. The list served as a basis for the barcode gap analyses in the Barcode-of-Life-Data-System (BOLD) conducted in three subsequent years (2020-2022). The overall barcode coverage of the pan-European fauna was around 50 % in both groups. The lowest coverage was in the Mediterranean, the Balkans and South-eastern Europe. The coverage in each country depended significantly on the local diversity, the number of rare, endemic species and the similarity of its fauna to that of the most active barcoding European countries. Gap analyses showed a very small increase in species coverage (<1 % in European aquatic beetles) despite an ~25 % increase in the number of barcodes. Hence, it is clear that future barcoding campaigns must prioritise quality over quantity. To visibly improve reference libraries, we need to increase the involvement of taxonomic experts and focus on targeted studies and underexplored but biodiversity-rich areas.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)