Illuminating arthropod diversity in a tropical forest: Assessing biodiversity by automatic light trapping and DNA metabarcoding

Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Environmental DNA Pub Date : 2024-04-06 DOI:10.1002/edn3.540
Daniel Souto-Vilarós, Yves Basset, Petr Blažek, Benita Laird-Hopkins, Simon T. Segar, Eduardo Navarro-Valencia, Ana Cecilia Zamora, Yahir Campusano, Richard Čtvrtečka, Amanda F. Savage, Filonila Perez, Yacksecari Lopez, Ricardo Bobadilla, José Alejandro Ramírez Silva, Greg P. A. Lamarre
{"title":"Illuminating arthropod diversity in a tropical forest: Assessing biodiversity by automatic light trapping and DNA metabarcoding","authors":"Daniel Souto-Vilarós,&nbsp;Yves Basset,&nbsp;Petr Blažek,&nbsp;Benita Laird-Hopkins,&nbsp;Simon T. Segar,&nbsp;Eduardo Navarro-Valencia,&nbsp;Ana Cecilia Zamora,&nbsp;Yahir Campusano,&nbsp;Richard Čtvrtečka,&nbsp;Amanda F. Savage,&nbsp;Filonila Perez,&nbsp;Yacksecari Lopez,&nbsp;Ricardo Bobadilla,&nbsp;José Alejandro Ramírez Silva,&nbsp;Greg P. A. Lamarre","doi":"10.1002/edn3.540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Although studies of insect decline have recently dominated headlines worldwide, their interpretation requires caution since for most species, we lack long-term population baselines. In the tropics, where most insect species thrive, our knowledge is even more limited and so reliable insect assessments must originate from well-established long-term monitoring efforts. Combining the extensive monitoring data from the Arthropod Program of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) on Barro Colorado Island (BCI), Panama, we compare whether known arthropod diversity can be detected through metabarcoding of bulk insect samples obtained through automatic light-trapping. Our study detected 4402 species based on Barcode Index Numbers (BIN) and detected fine-scale differences between wet and dry seasons and sampling localities. We further refined our analysis to indicate which families and genera explained seasonal turnover. Using samples collected in parallel, but sorted manually as part of the ongoing arthropod monitoring program, we compared these methods. Out of 538 BINs recovered through manual sorting, there was a 70% overlap with the metabarcoding data; however, it represented 30% of the total BINs detected through metabarcoding. Expecting higher detection through metabarcoding, we also compare the results with the 14 years of sampling in BCI to better understand how well the monitoring program has captured the diversity of focal groups. Our results revealed a ~50% overlap between both methods and similar total catch. Barcode Index Numbers manually detected but not recovered by metabarcoding highlight some of the limitations of molecular detection methods such as primer bias. Contrastingly, BINs detected with metabarcoding, but not recovered by the traditional monitoring scheme, highlight the importance of local and regional barcode reference libraries.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.540","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental DNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.540","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although studies of insect decline have recently dominated headlines worldwide, their interpretation requires caution since for most species, we lack long-term population baselines. In the tropics, where most insect species thrive, our knowledge is even more limited and so reliable insect assessments must originate from well-established long-term monitoring efforts. Combining the extensive monitoring data from the Arthropod Program of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) on Barro Colorado Island (BCI), Panama, we compare whether known arthropod diversity can be detected through metabarcoding of bulk insect samples obtained through automatic light-trapping. Our study detected 4402 species based on Barcode Index Numbers (BIN) and detected fine-scale differences between wet and dry seasons and sampling localities. We further refined our analysis to indicate which families and genera explained seasonal turnover. Using samples collected in parallel, but sorted manually as part of the ongoing arthropod monitoring program, we compared these methods. Out of 538 BINs recovered through manual sorting, there was a 70% overlap with the metabarcoding data; however, it represented 30% of the total BINs detected through metabarcoding. Expecting higher detection through metabarcoding, we also compare the results with the 14 years of sampling in BCI to better understand how well the monitoring program has captured the diversity of focal groups. Our results revealed a ~50% overlap between both methods and similar total catch. Barcode Index Numbers manually detected but not recovered by metabarcoding highlight some of the limitations of molecular detection methods such as primer bias. Contrastingly, BINs detected with metabarcoding, but not recovered by the traditional monitoring scheme, highlight the importance of local and regional barcode reference libraries.

Abstract Image

照亮热带森林中节肢动物的多样性:通过自动光诱捕和 DNA 代谢编码评估生物多样性
尽管有关昆虫数量减少的研究最近占据了全球的头条新闻,但对这些研究的解释需要谨慎,因为对于大多数物种来说,我们缺乏长期的种群基线。在大多数昆虫物种繁衍生息的热带地区,我们的知识更加有限,因此可靠的昆虫评估必须来自于完善的长期监测工作。结合史密森尼热带研究所(STRI)在巴拿马巴罗科罗拉多岛(BCI)的节肢动物项目的大量监测数据,我们比较了通过自动光诱法取大量昆虫样本进行代谢编码是否能检测到已知的节肢动物多样性。我们的研究根据条形码索引号(BIN)检测到了 4402 个物种,并检测到了雨季和旱季以及采样地点之间的细微差别。我们进一步完善了分析,指出了哪些科和属可以解释季节性变化。在节肢动物监测项目中,我们使用平行采集但人工分类的样本,对这些方法进行了比较。在人工分拣回收的 538 个 BINs 中,有 70% 与元条码数据重叠;然而,这只占通过元条码检测到的 BINs 总数的 30%。预计通过元标码检测到的数量会更多,我们还将结果与 14 年来在 BCI 的取样进行了比较,以更好地了解监测项目对重点群组多样性的捕捉程度。我们的结果显示,两种方法的重叠率约为 50%,总捕获量相似。人工检测到的条形码索引号未被元条码复原,这凸显了分子检测方法的一些局限性,如引物偏差。与此形成对比的是,元标码检测到的条形码索引号(BINs)却未被传统监测方法恢复,这凸显了当地和区域条形码参考库的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental DNA
Environmental DNA Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信