<scp>DNA</scp> metabarcoding captures subtle differences in forest beetle communities following disturbance

Liu, Mingxin; Baker, Susan C.; Burridge, Christopher P.; Jordan, Gregory J.; Clarke, Laurence J.

doi:10.1111/rec.13236

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Genetic barcoding is increasingly used to extend the knowledge of the diversity of highly diverse and understudied arthropod groups (Kress et al, 2015; Smith et al, 2009). Especially, the method of metabarcoding represents a promising tool for analyzing whole communities with unknown species composition (Ji et al, 2013; Steinke et al, 2022) without prior morphological identification (Barsoum et al, 2019; Liu et al, 2020; Yu et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Wildermuth,

Seifert,

Husemann

et al. 2023

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Averting climate change‐induced forest diebacks increasingly relies on tree species planted outside of their natural range and on the addition of non‐native tree species to mixed‐species forests. However, the consequences of such changes for associated biodiversity remain poorly understood, especially for the forest canopy as a largely understudied forest stratum. Here, we used flight interception traps and a metabarcoding approach to study the taxonomic and functional (trophic guilds) composition and taxon richness of canopy arthropods. We sampled 15 monospecific and mixed stands of native European beech, native Norway spruce—planted outside its natural range—and non‐native Douglas fir in North‐West Germany. We found that diversity of arthropods was lower in non‐native Douglas fir compared to native beech stands. Taxon richness of herbivores was reduced by both conifer species. Other functional guilds, however, were not affected by stand type. Arthropod composition differed strongly between native broadleaved beech and monospecific coniferous (native spruce or non‐native Douglas fir) stands, with less pronounced differences between the native and non‐native conifers. Beech‐conifer mixtures consistently hosted intermediate arthropod diversity and community composition compared to the respective monospecific stands. Moreover, arthropod diversity had a positive relationship with the number of canopy microhabitats. Our study shows that considering arthropod taxa of multiple functional groups reveals the multifaceted impact of non‐native tree species on forest canopy arthropod communities. Contrasting to previous studies that primarily focused on the forest floor, we found that native beech hosts a rich diversity of arthropods, compared to lower diversity and distinct communities in economically attractive, and especially in non‐native, conifers with few canopy microhabitats. Broadleaf‐conifer mixtures did not perform better than native beech stands, but mitigated negative effects of conifers—making such mixtures a compromise to foster both forest‐associated diversity and economic yield.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Wildermuth,

Seifert,

Husemann

et al. 2023

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of our study aims was to examine whether two indicator groups of arthropods, Formicidae and Collembola, re ected overall patterns in arthropods at our sites in response to exploration disturbances. Whilst metabarcoding can be used to detect whole assemblages of arthropods, applying metabarcoding to indicator species can be a valuable way to understand functional changes in the environment, especially for well-studied groups where this information is available (Hajibabaei et al 2019;Liu et al, 2020). Further, it is easier to build reference libraries, improve the taxonomic resolution of assays, and improve the understanding of speci c species ecology when focusing only on select indicator taxon groups compared to whole species assemblages (Stat et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the impact of mining exploration infrastructure on ground-dwelling arthropod communities using DNA metabarcoding and habitat characteristics.

Fernandes,

Clark-Ioannou,

Saunders

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For most mining projects, regular monitoring of environmental impacts is typically measured solely for the main operation footprint and not the supporting network of exploration infrastructure. Such infrastructure includes exploration tracks, roads and drill pads, where localised areas are cleared of native vegetation, and the surrounding habitat is undisturbed. Here we use DNA metabarcoding to study the impacts of mining exploration infrastructure on the ground-dwelling arthropod communities found on Banded Ironstone Formations (BIFs) in the Midwest region of Western Australia. Further, we examine whether two indicator species groups, Formicidae and Collembola, reflect the patterns in overall arthropod communities. The study was conducted at three mine sites, each with three infrastructure types: maintained tracks, unmaintained tracks, and drill pads. We collected ground-dwelling arthropods and recorded habitat characteristics (e.g. total vegetation cover, bare ground cover) along transects extending 100 m away from the disturbance into remnant vegetation. We found that all three infrastructure types impacted the habitat characteristics similarly, with physical changes in habitat extending into the remnant vegetation. However, among all three groups of arthropods (overall arthropods, Formicidae and Collembola), we observed a clear distinction between each exploration infrastructure type at the three sites, indicating a disturbance effect extending more than 100 m into remnant vegetation. We found that Formicidae communities reflected the changes in overall arthropod communities better than Collembola. Our results demonstrate the utility of DNA metabarcoding for documenting fine-scale impacts on arthropod communities and highlight the need to consider different types of disturbances associated with mining activity.

show abstract

“…Dietary metabarcoding has been used to determine the trophic interactions of trapped invertebrates (Huszarik et al, 2023), but much like similar methods, cross-contamination within the trap results in many false positive detections (Athey, Chapman and Harwood, 2017), requiring surface sterilisation (e.g., with bleach) to reduce these instances (Miller-ter Kuile, Apigo and Young, 2021). Bulk sample metabarcoding has, however, been applied very successfully; for example, to monitor and assess ecosystem restoration (Fernandes et al, 2019;Van Der Heyde et al, 2022), and beetle responses to human disturbances in forests (Liu, Baker, et al, 2020). Ethylene glycol is often used as a killing agent in studies combining metabarcoding and pitfall traps (Hohbein and Conway, 2018), with subsequent washing of samples prior to molecular analysis (e.g., with ethanol or water ;Fernandes et al, 2019;Van Der Heyde et al, 2022).…”

Section: Pitfall Trapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metabarcoding advances agricultural invertebrate biomonitoring by enhancing resolution, increasing throughput, and facilitating network inference

Hawthorne,

Cuff,

Collins

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomonitoring of agriculturally important insects is increasingly important given our need to understand a) the severity of impacts by pests and pathogens on crop yield and health, and b) the impact of environmental change and land management on insects, in line with sustainable development and global conservation targets. Traditional entomological traps remain an important part of the biomonitoring toolbox, but their processing is laborious and introduces latency, and they are variably accurate. The integration of molecular techniques such as DNA metabarcoding into insect biomonitoring has gained increasing attention, but the advantages of doing so, the kind of data this can generate, and how easily and effectively molecular analyses can be integrated with the diverse types of entomological traps currently used remains relatively unclear. In this review, we examine how combining DNA metabarcoding with a range of conventional entomological sampling techniques can advance biomonitoring in a way that is useful to researchers and practitioners. We highlight some of the key challenges and how to mitigate them, using examples of its integration with different sampling methods from the literature (e.g. interception, pitfall, malaise, and sticky traps) to demonstrate efficacy and suitability. Finally, we discuss how these data can be used to infer ecological networks, emphasising the importance of this as a framework for understanding species interactions and ecosystem functioning for more effective and descriptive biomonitoring.

show abstract

DNA metabarcoding captures subtle differences in forest beetle communities following disturbance

Cited by 11 publications

References 67 publications

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Metabarcoding reveals that mixed forests mitigate negative effects of non‐native trees on canopy arthropod diversity

Assessing the impact of mining exploration infrastructure on ground-dwelling arthropod communities using DNA metabarcoding and habitat characteristics.

Metabarcoding advances agricultural invertebrate biomonitoring by enhancing resolution, increasing throughput, and facilitating network inference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About