Our understanding of trophic interactions of small insectivorous mammals has been drastically improved with the advent of DNA metabarcoding. The technique has continued to be optimised over the years, with primer choice repeatedly being a vital factor for dietary inferences. However, the majority of dietary studies examining the effect of primer choice often rely on in silico analyses or comparing between species that occupy an identical niche type. Here, we apply DNA metabarcoding to empirically compare the prey detection capabilities of two widely used primer sets when assessing the diets of a flying (lesser horseshoe bat; Rhinolophus hipposideros) and two ground-dwelling insectivores (greater white-toothed shrew; Crocidura russula and pygmy shrew; Sorex minutus). Although R. hipposideros primarily rely on two prey orders (Lepidoptera and Diptera), the unique taxa detected by each primer shows that a combination of primers may be the best approach to fully describe bat trophic ecology. However, random forest classifier analysis suggests that one highly degenerate primer set detected the majority of both shrews’ diet despite higher levels of host amplification. The wide range of prey consumed by ground-dwelling insectivores can therefore be accurately documented from using a single broad-range primer set, which can decrease cost and labour. The results presented here show that dietary inferences will differ depending on the primer or primer combination used for insectivores occupying different niches (i.e., hunting in the air or ground) and demonstrate the importance of performing empirical pilot studies for novel study systems.

Invasive non‐native species are now considered to be one of the greatest threats to biodiversity worldwide. Therefore, efficient and cost‐effective management of species invasions requires robust knowledge of their demography, ecology and impacts, and genetic‐based techniques are becoming more widely adopted in acquiring such knowledge. We focus on the use of genetic tools in the applied management of mammalian invasions globally, as well as on their inherent advantages and disadvantages. We cover tools that are used in: 1) detecting and monitoring mammalian invaders; 2) identifying origins and invasive pathways; 3) assessing and quantifying the negative impacts of invaders; and 4) population management and potential eradication of invasive mammals. We highlight changes in sequencing technologies, including how the use of techniques such as Sanger sequencing and microsatellite genotyping, for monitoring and tracing invasive pathways respectively, are now giving way to the use of high‐throughput sequencing methods. These include the emergence of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding for the early detection of invasive mammals, and single nucleotide polymorphisms or whole genomes to trace the sources of invasive populations. We are now moving towards trials of genome‐editing techniques and gene drives to control or eradicate invasive rodents. Genetic tools can provide vital information that may not be accessible with non‐genetic methods, for the implementation of conservation policies (e.g. early detection using systematic eDNA surveillance, the identification of novel pathogens). However, the lack of clear communication of novel genetic methods and results (including transparency and reproducibility) to relevant stakeholders can be prohibitive in translating these findings to appropriate management actions. Geneticists should engage early with stakeholders to co‐design experiments in relation to management goals for invasive mammals.

The present study examined the contemporary genetic composition of the Eurasian badger, Meles meles, in Ireland, Britain and Western Europe, using six nuclear microsatellite loci and a 215‐bp fragment of the mitochondrial DNA control region. Significant population structure was evident within Europe (global multilocus microsatellite FST = 0.205, P < 0.001; global mitochondrial control region ΦST = 0.399, P < 0.001). Microsatellite‐based cluster analyses detected one population in Ireland, whereas badgers from Britain could be subdivided into several populations. Excluding the island populations of Ireland and Britain, badgers from Western Europe showed further structuring, with evidence of discrete Scandinavian, Central European, and Spanish populations. Mitochondrial DNA cluster analysis grouped the Irish population with Scandinavia and Spain, whereas the majority of British haplotypes grouped with those from Central Europe. The findings of the present study suggest that British and Irish badger populations colonized from different refugial areas, or that there were different waves of colonization from the source population. There are indications for the presence of an Atlantic fringe element, which has been seen in other Irish species. We discuss the results in light of the controversy about natural versus human‐mediated introductions. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, ••, ••–••.

No abstract

No abstract