Comparison of Seven DNA Metabarcoding Sampling Methods to Assess Diet in a Large Avian Predator

Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Neil Paprocki, Shannon Blair, Courtney J. Conway, Jennifer Adams, Stacey Nerkowski, Jeff Kidd, Lisette Waits
{"title":"Comparison of Seven DNA Metabarcoding Sampling Methods to Assess Diet in a Large Avian Predator","authors":"Neil Paprocki,&nbsp;Shannon Blair,&nbsp;Courtney J. Conway,&nbsp;Jennifer Adams,&nbsp;Stacey Nerkowski,&nbsp;Jeff Kidd,&nbsp;Lisette Waits","doi":"10.1002/edn3.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>DNA metabarcoding is a rapidly advancing tool for diet assessment in wildlife ecology. Studies have used a variety of field collection methods to evaluate diet; however, there is a pressing need to understand the differences among sampling methods and the downstream inferential consequences they may have on our ability to document diet accurately and efficiently. We evaluated seven DNA metabarcoding sampling methods to assess the diet of a large avian predator: <i>Buteo lagopus</i> (rough-legged hawk). We collected beak swabs, talon swabs, cheek (buccal) swabs, cloacal swabs, and cloacal loops from captured birds, and collected fecal samples from both captured and uncaptured birds. We described and compared variation in prey recovery within and among the seven sampling methods and identified appropriate analytical methods to compare diet among individuals sampled via different methods. Beak and talon swabs produced the highest prey detection rates, yielded the greatest prey richness per sample, and contributed the most to an individual's total prey richness per sampling occasion compared to other sampling methods. Within individuals sampled using five methods during a single capture occasion, cloacal swabs and cheek swabs positively predicted prey richness and average prey mass, respectively, from fecal samples. While all methods identified similar dominant prey taxa that were consistent with prior diet studies, beak and talon swabs detected greater prey richness at both the individual and population levels. We propose a food residue duration hypothesis whereby methods which sample areas containing food DNA consumed from longer and more continuous pre-sampling time intervals explain variation among sampling methods in observed prey richness. Choice of sampling method can influence predator diet characterization and is particularly important if researchers wish to quantify uncommon diet items or compare diet metrics using samples collected via different methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":52828,"journal":{"name":"Environmental DNA","volume":"6 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/edn3.70000","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental DNA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/edn3.70000","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

DNA metabarcoding is a rapidly advancing tool for diet assessment in wildlife ecology. Studies have used a variety of field collection methods to evaluate diet; however, there is a pressing need to understand the differences among sampling methods and the downstream inferential consequences they may have on our ability to document diet accurately and efficiently. We evaluated seven DNA metabarcoding sampling methods to assess the diet of a large avian predator: Buteo lagopus (rough-legged hawk). We collected beak swabs, talon swabs, cheek (buccal) swabs, cloacal swabs, and cloacal loops from captured birds, and collected fecal samples from both captured and uncaptured birds. We described and compared variation in prey recovery within and among the seven sampling methods and identified appropriate analytical methods to compare diet among individuals sampled via different methods. Beak and talon swabs produced the highest prey detection rates, yielded the greatest prey richness per sample, and contributed the most to an individual's total prey richness per sampling occasion compared to other sampling methods. Within individuals sampled using five methods during a single capture occasion, cloacal swabs and cheek swabs positively predicted prey richness and average prey mass, respectively, from fecal samples. While all methods identified similar dominant prey taxa that were consistent with prior diet studies, beak and talon swabs detected greater prey richness at both the individual and population levels. We propose a food residue duration hypothesis whereby methods which sample areas containing food DNA consumed from longer and more continuous pre-sampling time intervals explain variation among sampling methods in observed prey richness. Choice of sampling method can influence predator diet characterization and is particularly important if researchers wish to quantify uncommon diet items or compare diet metrics using samples collected via different methods.

Abstract Image

比较七种 DNA 元条码取样方法以评估大型鸟类捕食者的食性
DNA 代谢编码是野生动物生态学中一种迅速发展的饮食评估工具。研究已经使用了多种野外采集方法来评估食性;然而,我们迫切需要了解不同采样方法之间的差异,以及它们可能对我们准确、高效地记录食性的能力产生的下游推论后果。我们评估了七种 DNA 代谢编码取样方法,以评估一种大型鸟类食肉动物的食性:Buteo lagopus(粗腿鹰)。我们收集了捕获鸟类的喙拭子、爪拭子、颊(颊面)拭子、泄殖腔拭子和泄殖腔环,并收集了捕获鸟类和未捕获鸟类的粪便样本。我们描述并比较了七种取样方法内部和之间猎物回收率的差异,并确定了适当的分析方法来比较通过不同方法取样的个体的饮食情况。与其他取样方法相比,喙和爪拭子的猎物检出率最高,每个样本的猎物丰富度最高,对个体每次取样的总猎物丰富度贡献最大。在单次捕获过程中使用五种方法采样的个体中,泄殖腔拭子和颊拭子分别对粪便样本中的猎物丰富度和平均猎物质量有积极的预测作用。虽然所有方法都能发现类似的主要猎物分类群,这与之前的食性研究一致,但喙拭子和爪拭子在个体和种群水平上都能检测到更丰富的猎物。我们提出了一个食物残渣持续时间假说,即对含有食物 DNA 的区域进行取样的方法在取样前的时间间隔更长、更连续,从而解释了不同取样方法在观察到的猎物丰富度方面的差异。取样方法的选择会影响捕食者的食性特征,如果研究人员希望量化不常见的食性项目或比较使用不同方法采集的样本的食性指标,那么取样方法的选择就显得尤为重要。
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