How networks of ecological interactions are structured has a major impact on their functioning. However, accurately resolving both the nodes of the webs and the links between them is fraught with difficulties. We ask whether the new resolution conferred by molecular information changes perceptions of network structure. To probe a network of antagonistic interactions in the High Arctic, we use two complementary sources of molecular data: parasitoid DNA sequenced from the tissues of their hosts and host DNA sequenced from the gut of adult parasitoids. The information added by molecular analysis radically changes the properties of interaction structure. Overall, three times as many interaction types were revealed by combining molecular information from parasitoids and hosts with rearing data, versus rearing data alone. At the species level, our results alter the perceived host specificity of parasitoids, the parasitoid load of host species, and the webwide role of predators with a cryptic lifestyle. As the northernmost network of host-parasitoid interactions quantified, our data point exerts high leverage on global comparisons of food web structure. However, how we view its structure will depend on what information we use: compared with variation among networks quantified at other sites, the properties of our web vary as much or much more depending on the techniques used to reconstruct it. We thus urge ecologists to combine multiple pieces of evidence in assessing the structure of interaction webs, and suggest that current perceptions of interaction structure may be strongly affected by the methods used to construct them.trophic interaction | Hymenoptera | Lepidoptera | DNA barcode H ow networks of ecological interactions are structured has major implications on how they function (1), how they react to external stressors (2, 3) and how they return to their original state after disturbance (4, 5). Quantitative descriptions of who interacts with whom (e.g., refs. 6 and 7) may then be used to formulate testable hypotheses for basic questions concerning, for example, the fundamental strength of indirect interactions (8, 9), or how a community will respond to invasive species, habitat modification, or climate change (e.g., refs. 10-14). In applied biology, quantifications of interaction structure have increasingly been used to examine the success of, for example, habitat restoration and management, the biological control of pests, and the conservation of biodiversity (6). Global comparisons of food web structure are underway, comparing the linking structure of local webs described from different latitudes with highly different species richness (15, 16).To encapsulate the emergent properties of large networks of interactions, a set of quantitative descriptors has been proposed (e.g., refs. 2, and 17-19) and widely adopted (e.g., refs. 11 and 20-22). Commonly used metrics summarize the specialization of species at different trophic levels, such as the average number of species at a lower trophic level interacting with ea...

DNA barcoding protocols require the linkage of each sequence record to a voucher specimen that has, whenever possible, been authoritatively identified. Natural history collections would seem an ideal resource for barcode library construction, but they have never seen large-scale analysis because of concerns linked to DNA degradation. The present study examines the strength of this barrier, carrying out a comprehensive analysis of moth and butterfly (Lepidoptera) species in the Australian National Insect Collection. Protocols were developed that enabled tissue samples, specimen data, and images to be assembled rapidly. Using these methods, a five-person team processed 41,650 specimens representing 12,699 species in 14 weeks. Subsequent molecular analysis took about six months, reflecting the need for multiple rounds of PCR as sequence recovery was impacted by age, body size, and collection protocols. Despite these variables and the fact that specimens averaged 30.4 years old, barcode records were obtained from 86% of the species. In fact, one or more barcode compliant sequences (>487 bp) were recovered from virtually all species represented by five or more individuals, even when the youngest was 50 years old. By assembling specimen images, distributional data, and DNA barcode sequences on a web-accessible informatics platform, this study has greatly advanced accessibility to information on thousands of species. Moreover, much of the specimen data became publically accessible within days of its acquisition, while most sequence results saw release within three months. As such, this study reveals the speed with which DNA barcode workflows can mobilize biodiversity data, often providing the first web-accessible information for a species. These results further suggest that existing collections can enable the rapid development of a comprehensive DNA barcode library for the most diverse compartment of terrestrial biodiversity – insects.

BackgroundAlthough high-throughput sequencers (HTS) have largely displaced their Sanger counterparts, the short read lengths and high error rates of most platforms constrain their utility for amplicon sequencing. The present study tests the capacity of single molecule, real-time (SMRT) sequencing implemented on the SEQUEL platform to overcome these limitations, employing 658 bp amplicons of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I gene as a model system.ResultsBy examining templates from more than 5000 species and 20,000 specimens, the performance of SMRT sequencing was tested with amplicons showing wide variation in GC composition and varied sequence attributes. SMRT and Sanger sequences were very similar, but SMRT sequencing provided more complete coverage, especially for amplicons with homopolymer tracts. Because it can characterize amplicon pools from 10,000 DNA extracts in a single run, the SEQUEL can reduce greatly reduce sequencing costs in comparison to first (Sanger) and second generation platforms (Illumina, Ion).ConclusionsSMRT analysis generates high-fidelity sequences from amplicons with varying GC content and is resilient to homopolymer tracts. Analytical costs are low, substantially less than those for first or second generation sequencers. When implemented on the SEQUEL platform, SMRT analysis enables massive amplicon characterization because each instrument can recover sequences from more than 5 million DNA extracts a year.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12864-018-4611-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Although DNA metabarcoding is an attractive approach for monitoring biodiversity, it is often difficult to detect all the species present in a bulk sample. In particular, sequence recovery for a given species depends on its biomass and mitome copy number as well as the primer set employed for PCR. To examine these variables, we constructed a mock community of terrestrial arthropods comprised of 374 species. We used this community to examine how species recovery was impacted when amplicon pools were constructed in four ways. The first two protocols involved the construction of bulk DNA extracts from different body segments (Bulk Abdomen, Bulk Leg). The other protocols involved the production of DNA extracts from single legs which were then merged prior to PCR (Composite Leg) or PCR‐amplified separately (Single Leg) and then pooled. The amplicons generated by these four treatments were then sequenced on three platforms (Illumina MiSeq, Ion Torrent PGM and Ion Torrent S5). The choice of sequencing platform did not substantially influence species recovery, although the Miseq delivered the highest sequence quality. As expected, species recovery was most efficient from the Single Leg treatment because amplicon abundance varied little among taxa. Among the three treatments where PCR occurred after pooling, the Bulk Abdomen treatment produced a more uniform read abundance than the Bulk Leg or Composite Leg treatment. Primer choice also influenced species recovery and evenness. Our results reveal how variation in protocols can have substantial impacts on perceived diversity unless sequencing coverage is sufficient to reach an asymptote.

Metabarcoding can rapidly determine the species composition of bulk samples and thus aids biodiversity and ecosystem assessment. However, it is essential to use primer sets that minimize amplification bias among taxa to maximize species recovery. Despite this fact, the performance of primer sets employed for metabarcoding terrestrial arthropods has not been sufficiently evaluated. This study tests the performance of 36 primer sets on a mock community containing 374 insect species. Amplification success was assessed with gradient PCRs and the 21 most promising primer sets selected for metabarcoding. These 21 primer sets were also tested by metabarcoding a Malaise trap sample. We identified eight primer sets, mainly those including inosine and/or high degeneracy, that recovered more than 95% of the species in the mock community. Results from the Malaise trap sample were congruent with the mock community, but primer sets generating short amplicons produced potential false positives. Taxon recovery from both mock community and Malaise trap sample metabarcoding were used to select four primer sets for additional evaluation at different annealing temperatures (40–60 °C) using the mock community. The effect of temperature varied by primer pair but overall it only had a minor effect on taxon recovery. This study reveals the weak performance of some primer sets employed in past studies. It also demonstrates that certain primer sets can recover most taxa in a diverse species assemblage. Thus, based our experimental set up, there is no need to employ several primer sets targeting the same gene region. We identify several suitable primer sets for arthropod metabarcoding, and specifically recommend BF3 + BR2, as it is not affected by primer slippage and provides maximal taxonomic resolution. The fwhF2 + fwhR2n primer set amplifies a shorter fragment and is therefore ideal when targeting degraded DNA (e.g., from gut contents).