{"title":"节肢动物传粉媒介多样性的元条形码分析:来自花和来自大量昆虫样本的eDNA的方法学比较。","authors":"Kara S. Jones, David S. Pilliod, Aaron W. Aunins","doi":"10.1111/mec.70003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Limitations of traditional insect sampling methods have motivated the development and optimisation of new non-lethal methods capable of quantifying diverse arthropod communities. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding using arthropod-specific primers has recently been investigated as a novel way to characterise arthropod communities from the DNA they deposit on the surface of plants. This sampling method has had demonstrated success, but pollinators—especially bees—are oddly underrepresented in these studies. To evaluate this inconsistency, we investigated the limitations of eDNA metabarcoding for bees and other pollinators. We compared pollinator diversity derived from eDNA extracted from flowers and DNA extracted from pulverised bulk samples of insects collected from vane traps deployed at the same sites using three metabarcoding primers, two of which target arthropods generally (COI-Jusino and 16S-Marquina) and one that targets bumblebees (<i>Bombus</i> spp., COI-Milam). Across methods, we detected 77 insect families from 9 orders. The COI-Jusino marker amplified the highest taxonomic diversity compared to 16S-Marquina and COI-Milam. More amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) were recovered from vane traps (blue: 1357, yellow: 1542) than flowers (245), but only 23% of families and 13% of genera were shared among methods, indicating that flowers and blue and yellow vane traps may each sample different parts of the available arthropod community. Of 29 flower samples with known bee visitations, only 10 samples had bee detections from eDNA, and incomplete reference databases hindered assignment to species. Although our study provides additional evidence for the usefulness of eDNA metabarcoding for characterising arthropod communities, significant challenges remain when using eDNA metabarcoding methods to identify and quantify pollinator communities, especially bees.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":210,"journal":{"name":"Molecular Ecology","volume":"34 14","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metabarcoding Analysis of Arthropod Pollinator Diversity: A Methodological Comparison of eDNA Derived From Flowers and DNA Derived From Bulk Samples of Insects\",\"authors\":\"Kara S. Jones, David S. Pilliod, Aaron W. Aunins\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/mec.70003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Limitations of traditional insect sampling methods have motivated the development and optimisation of new non-lethal methods capable of quantifying diverse arthropod communities. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding using arthropod-specific primers has recently been investigated as a novel way to characterise arthropod communities from the DNA they deposit on the surface of plants. This sampling method has had demonstrated success, but pollinators—especially bees—are oddly underrepresented in these studies. To evaluate this inconsistency, we investigated the limitations of eDNA metabarcoding for bees and other pollinators. We compared pollinator diversity derived from eDNA extracted from flowers and DNA extracted from pulverised bulk samples of insects collected from vane traps deployed at the same sites using three metabarcoding primers, two of which target arthropods generally (COI-Jusino and 16S-Marquina) and one that targets bumblebees (<i>Bombus</i> spp., COI-Milam). Across methods, we detected 77 insect families from 9 orders. The COI-Jusino marker amplified the highest taxonomic diversity compared to 16S-Marquina and COI-Milam. More amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) were recovered from vane traps (blue: 1357, yellow: 1542) than flowers (245), but only 23% of families and 13% of genera were shared among methods, indicating that flowers and blue and yellow vane traps may each sample different parts of the available arthropod community. Of 29 flower samples with known bee visitations, only 10 samples had bee detections from eDNA, and incomplete reference databases hindered assignment to species. Although our study provides additional evidence for the usefulness of eDNA metabarcoding for characterising arthropod communities, significant challenges remain when using eDNA metabarcoding methods to identify and quantify pollinator communities, especially bees.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Molecular Ecology\",\"volume\":\"34 14\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Molecular Ecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.70003\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Molecular Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.70003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Metabarcoding Analysis of Arthropod Pollinator Diversity: A Methodological Comparison of eDNA Derived From Flowers and DNA Derived From Bulk Samples of Insects
Limitations of traditional insect sampling methods have motivated the development and optimisation of new non-lethal methods capable of quantifying diverse arthropod communities. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding using arthropod-specific primers has recently been investigated as a novel way to characterise arthropod communities from the DNA they deposit on the surface of plants. This sampling method has had demonstrated success, but pollinators—especially bees—are oddly underrepresented in these studies. To evaluate this inconsistency, we investigated the limitations of eDNA metabarcoding for bees and other pollinators. We compared pollinator diversity derived from eDNA extracted from flowers and DNA extracted from pulverised bulk samples of insects collected from vane traps deployed at the same sites using three metabarcoding primers, two of which target arthropods generally (COI-Jusino and 16S-Marquina) and one that targets bumblebees (Bombus spp., COI-Milam). Across methods, we detected 77 insect families from 9 orders. The COI-Jusino marker amplified the highest taxonomic diversity compared to 16S-Marquina and COI-Milam. More amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) were recovered from vane traps (blue: 1357, yellow: 1542) than flowers (245), but only 23% of families and 13% of genera were shared among methods, indicating that flowers and blue and yellow vane traps may each sample different parts of the available arthropod community. Of 29 flower samples with known bee visitations, only 10 samples had bee detections from eDNA, and incomplete reference databases hindered assignment to species. Although our study provides additional evidence for the usefulness of eDNA metabarcoding for characterising arthropod communities, significant challenges remain when using eDNA metabarcoding methods to identify and quantify pollinator communities, especially bees.
期刊介绍:
Molecular Ecology publishes papers that utilize molecular genetic techniques to address consequential questions in ecology, evolution, behaviour and conservation. Studies may employ neutral markers for inference about ecological and evolutionary processes or examine ecologically important genes and their products directly. We discourage papers that are primarily descriptive and are relevant only to the taxon being studied. Papers reporting on molecular marker development, molecular diagnostics, barcoding, or DNA taxonomy, or technical methods should be re-directed to our sister journal, Molecular Ecology Resources. Likewise, papers with a strongly applied focus should be submitted to Evolutionary Applications. Research areas of interest to Molecular Ecology include:
* population structure and phylogeography
* reproductive strategies
* relatedness and kin selection
* sex allocation
* population genetic theory
* analytical methods development
* conservation genetics
* speciation genetics
* microbial biodiversity
* evolutionary dynamics of QTLs
* ecological interactions
* molecular adaptation and environmental genomics
* impact of genetically modified organisms