| Literature DB >> 27602302 |
Yuzhan Yang1, Aibin Zhan2, Lei Cao2, Fanjuan Meng2, Wenbin Xu3.
Abstract
Food availability and diet selection are important factors influencing the abundance and distribution of wild waterbirds. In order to better understand changes in waterbird population, it is essential to figure out what they feed on. However, analyzing their diet could be difficult and inefficient using traditional methods such as microhistologic observation. Here, we addressed this gap of knowledge by investigating the diet of greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons and bean goose Anser fabalis, which are obligate herbivores wintering in China, mostly in the Middle and Lower Yangtze River floodplain. First, we selected a suitable and high-resolution marker gene for wetland plants that these geese would consume during the wintering period. Eight candidate genes were included: rbcL, rpoC1, rpoB, matK, trnH-psbA, trnL (UAA), atpF-atpH, and psbK-psbI. The selection was performed via analysis of representative sequences from NCBI and comparison of amplification efficiency and resolution power of plant samples collected from the wintering area. The trnL gene was chosen at last with c/h primers, and a local plant reference library was constructed with this gene. Then, utilizing DNA metabarcoding, we discovered 15 food items in total from the feces of these birds. Of the 15 unique dietary sequences, 10 could be identified at specie level. As for greater white-fronted goose, 73% of sequences belonged to Poaceae spp., and 26% belonged to Carex spp. In contrast, almost all sequences of bean goose belonged to Carex spp. (99%). Using the same samples, microhistology provided consistent food composition with metabarcoding results for greater white-fronted goose, while 13% of Poaceae was recovered for bean goose. In addition, two other taxa were discovered only through microhistologic analysis. Although most of the identified taxa matched relatively well between the two methods, DNA metabarcoding gave taxonomically more detailed information. Discrepancies were likely due to biased PCR amplification in metabarcoding, low discriminating power of current marker genes for monocots, and biases in microhistologic analysis. The diet differences between two geese species might indicate deeper ecological significance beyond the scope of this study. We concluded that DNA metabarcoding provides new perspectives for studies of herbivorous waterbird diets and inter-specific interactions, as well as new possibilities to investigate interactions between herbivores and plants. In addition, microhistologic analysis should be used together with metabarcoding methods to integrate this information.Entities:
Keywords: Bean goose; Diet analysis; Greater white-fronted goose; Metabarcoding; Molecular reference library; trnL
Year: 2016 PMID: 27602302 PMCID: PMC4991844 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2345
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Technical flowchart of this study.
Figure 2The location of our study area, Shengjin Lake National Nature Reserve and our sampling sites.
(Source: http://eros.usgs.gov/#).
Primers of candidate genes and reference library constructing.
Only the c and h were used for high-throughput sequencing in fusion primer mode (primer + tags). The unique tags were used to differentiate PCR products pooled together for highthroughput sequencing (Parameswaran et al., 2007).
| Gene | Primer | Sequence (5′-3′) |
|---|---|---|
| matK-XF | TAATTTACGATCAATTCATTC | |
| matK-MALP | ACAAGAAAGTCGAAGTAT | |
| rbcLa-F | ATGTCACCACAAACAGAGACTAAAGC | |
| rbcLa-R | GTAAAATCAAGTCCACCRCG | |
| pasbA3_f | CGCGCATGGTGGATTCACAATCC | |
| trnHf_05 | GTTATGCATGAACGTAATGCTC | |
| CGAAATCGGTAGACGCTACG | ||
| CCATTGAGTCTCTGCACCTATC |
Notes.
referred to Ford et al. (2009).
referred to Dunning & Savolainen (2010).
referred to Hasebe et al. (1994).
referred to Kress et al. (2009).
referred to Tate & Simpson (2003).
referred to Sang, Crawford & Stuessy (1997).
referred to Taberlet et al. (1991).
referred to Taberlet et al. (2007).
Plant species in the reference library.
We collected these samples from Shengjin Lake.
| Species | No. of samples | Species | No. of samples |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 2 | 2 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 2 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 2 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 2 | 4 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 3 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 3 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 2 | ||
| 1 | 2 | ||
| 1 | 2 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 2 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 1 | ||
| 1 | 2 |
Inter-specific divergences within dominant genera and families of rbcL gene and trnL gene with Kiruma 2-Parameter model.
Underscores indicate the most common food composition based on earlier microhistologic analysis (Zhao et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2015).
| Inter-specific divergence | Taxa | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximal | Minimal | Mean | Maximal | Minimal | Mean | ||
| Within genera | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 ± 0.000 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 0.027 | 0.000 | 0.010 ± 0.006 | 0.076 | 0.000 | 0.033 ± 0.022 | ||
| 0.012 | 0.000 | 0.005 ± 0.0034 | 0.016 | 0.000 | 0.005 ± 0.005 | ||
| 0.031 | 0.000 | 0.020 ± 0.009 | 0.042 | 0.021 | 0.024 ± 0.022 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 ± 0.000 | ||
| Within families |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0.120 | 0.000 | 0.049 ± 0.017 | 0.087 | 0.000 | 0.023 ± 0.018 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 0.122 | 0.000 | 0.078 ± 0.020 | 0.159 | 0.000 | 0.100 ± 0.054 | ||
| 0.043 | 0.000 | 0.020 ± 0.009 | 0.129 | 0.000 | 0.031 ± 0.022 | ||
| 0.033 | 0.016 | 0.017 ± 0.015 | 0.045 | 0.000 | 0.018 ± 0.013 | ||
Number of species and unique sequences for families with more than one species in Shengjin Lake plant database.
| Family | No. of species | No. of sequences |
|---|---|---|
| 8 | 7 | |
| 2 | 2 | |
| 7 | 5 | |
| 2 | 2 | |
| 4 | 3 | |
| 2 | 2 | |
| 10 | 8 | |
| 5 | 5 | |
| 5 | 1 | |
| 3 | 3 | |
| 3 | 3 | |
| 4 | 3 | |
| 2 | 2 |
Summary of the process and results of high-throughput sequencing analysis.
| Sample | Pair-end sequences | Sequences for which primers and tags were identified and with length >100 bp | Unique sequences | OTUs | Food items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GWFG1 | 16303 | 8627 | 1288 | 78 | 8 |
| GWFG2 | 25482 | 13449 | 1091 | 102 | 8 |
| GWFG3 | 19063 | 10056 | 1277 | 48 | 10 |
| GWFG4 | 23856 | 12548 | 1419 | 114 | 8 |
| GWFG5 | 20955 | 11249 | 1720 | 123 | 9 |
| GWFG6 | 11677 | 7205 | 973 | 52 | 9 |
| GWFG7 | 13377 | 6782 | 1328 | 59 | 9 |
| GWFG8 | 7749 | 3959 | 774 | 89 | 9 |
| GWFG9 | 16833 | 8799 | 1436 | 90 | 6 |
| GWFG10 | 18474 | 9819 | 449 | 32 | 9 |
| GWFG11 | 19648 | 10458 | 617 | 31 | 6 |
| BG1 | 20225 | 10254 | 784 | 23 | 4 |
| BG2 | 14195 | 7161 | 564 | 16 | 2 |
| BG3 | 2229 | 1149 | 255 | 12 | 4 |
| BG4 | 517 | 268 | 77 | 8 | 3 |
| BG5 | 28152 | 14033 | 1000 | 15 | 3 |
| BG6 | 16723 | 8484 | 740 | 17 | 4 |
| BG7 | 30166 | 15403 | 974 | 15 | 4 |
| BG8 | 30928 | 15706 | 1028 | 15 | 3 |
| BG9 | 8382 | 4489 | 446 | 13 | 4 |
| BG10 | 10714 | 5526 | 537 | 13 | 4 |
Notes.
Greater white-fronted goose
Bean goose
List of the lowest taxonomic food items in the diet of geese.
| Food items | Level of identification | GWFG | BG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family | 51705 | 47.98 | 45.68 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Species | 23554 | 21.86 | 0.00 | 167 | 0.20 | 0.00 | |
| Species | 18867 | 17.51 | 16.39 | 81457 | 99.49 | 62.85 | |
| Genus | 9706 | 9.01 | 2.31 | 191 | 0.23 | 3.49 | |
| Species | 3458 | 3.21 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Species | 184 | 0.17 | 1.18 | 65 | 0.08 | 2.06 | |
| Species | 155 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Genus | 56 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Species | 26 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Species | 14 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Species | 11 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Genus | 16 | 0.01 | 2.33 | 0 | 0.00 | 14.55 | |
| Genus | 0 | 0.00 | 30.93 | 0 | 0.00 | 13.18 | |
| Species | 0 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 0 | 0.00 | 2.79 | |
| Genus | 0 | 0.00 | 0.64 | 0 | 0.00 | 1.08 | |
Notes.
Greater white-fronted goose
Bean goose
percentage of sequences in DNA metabarcoding
percentage of epidermis squares in microhistological analysis