Literature DB >> 32065512

Testing multiple substrates for terrestrial biodiversity monitoring using environmental DNA metabarcoding.

Mieke van der Heyde1,2, Michael Bunce2, Grant Wardell-Johnson1, Kristen Fernandes2, Nicole E White2, Paul Nevill1,2.   

Abstract

Biological surveys based on visual identification of the biota are challenging, expensive and time consuming, yet crucial for effective biomonitoring. DNA metabarcoding is a rapidly developing technology that can also facilitate biological surveys. This method involves the use of next generation sequencing technology to determine the community composition of a sample. However, it is uncertain as to what biological substrate should be the primary focus of metabarcoding surveys. This study aims to test multiple sample substrates (soil, scat, plant material and bulk arthropods) to determine what organisms can be detected from each and where they overlap. Samples (n = 200) were collected in the Pilbara (hot desert climate) and Swan Coastal Plain (hot Mediterranean climate) regions of Western Australia. Soil samples yielded little plant or animal DNA, especially in the Pilbara, probably due to conditions not conducive to long-term preservation. In contrast, scat samples contained the highest overall diversity with 131 plant, vertebrate and invertebrate families detected. Invertebrate and plant sequences were detected in the plant (86 families), pitfall (127 families) and vane trap (126 families) samples. In total, 278 families were recovered from the survey, 217 in the Swan Coastal Plain and 156 in the Pilbara. Aside from soil, 22%-43% of the families detected were unique to the particular substrate, and community composition varied significantly between substrates. These results demonstrate the importance of selecting appropriate metabarcoding substrates when undertaking terrestrial surveys. If the aim is to broadly capture all biota then multiple substrates will be required.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA barcoding; biodiversity; biological audit; metagenomics; terrestrial

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32065512     DOI: 10.1111/1755-0998.13148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour        ISSN: 1755-098X            Impact factor:   7.090


  7 in total

1.  Diverse Host Plants of the First Instars of the Invasive Lycorma delicatula: Insights from eDNA Metabarcoding.

Authors:  Cameron McPherson; Alina Avanesyan; William O Lamp
Journal:  Insects       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 3.139

2.  Multiple species delimitation approaches with COI barcodes poorly fit each other and morphospecies - An integrative taxonomy case of Sri Lankan Sericini chafers (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae).

Authors:  Uda Gedara Sasanka Lakmali Ranasinghe; Jonas Eberle; Jana Thormann; Claudia Bohacz; Suresh P Benjamin; Dirk Ahrens
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 3.167

3.  Metabarcoding Malaise traps and soil eDNA reveals seasonal and local arthropod diversity shifts.

Authors:  Ameli Kirse; Sarah J Bourlat; Kathrin Langen; Vera G Fonseca
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 4.996

Review 4.  Environmental DNA analysis as an emerging non-destructive method for plant biodiversity monitoring: a review.

Authors:  Pritam Banerjee; Kathryn A Stewart; Gobinda Dey; Caterina M Antognazza; Raju Kumar Sharma; Jyoti Prakash Maity; Santanu Saha; Hideyuki Doi; Natasha de Vere; Michael W Y Chan; Pin-Yun Lin; Hung-Chun Chao; Chien-Yen Chen
Journal:  AoB Plants       Date:  2022-07-02       Impact factor: 3.138

5.  Evaluating restoration trajectories using DNA metabarcoding of ground-dwelling and airborne invertebrates and associated plant communities.

Authors:  Mieke van der Heyde; Michael Bunce; Kingsley W Dixon; Kristen Fernandes; Jonathan Majer; Grant Wardell-Johnson; Nicole E White; Paul Nevill
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 6.622

6.  Pollen DNA metabarcoding identifies regional provenance and high plant diversity in Australian honey.

Authors:  Liz Milla; Kale Sniderman; Rose Lines; Mahsa Mousavi-Derazmahalleh; Francisco Encinas-Viso
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 2.912

Review 7.  Reinforcement of Environmental DNA Based Methods (Sensu Stricto) in Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation: A Review.

Authors:  Pritam Banerjee; Gobinda Dey; Caterina M Antognazza; Raju Kumar Sharma; Jyoti Prakash Maity; Michael W Y Chan; Yi-Hsun Huang; Pin-Yun Lin; Hung-Chun Chao; Chung-Ming Lu; Chien-Yen Chen
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-23
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.