The state, transport, and fate of aboveground terrestrial arthropod eDNA

Valentin, Rafael; Kyle, Kathleen; Allen, Michael C.; Welbourne, Dustin J.; Lockwood, Julie L.

doi:10.1002/edn3.229

Cited by 43 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, these results prove that most species detected within the rainwash water were eDNA signals washed into the sampler from the tree canopy. This aligns with results reported by Valentin et al (2021) showing that invertebrate eDNA is washed off vegetation surfaces and can be detected. However, it is highly likely that only a very small proportion of the eDNA released by the invertebrate community in the canopy was detected in rainwash eDNA, since the samplers only covered an area of 1 m 2 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…However, the potential of eDNA metabarcoding of rainwater to assess canopy insect diversity has not been explored. Valentin et al (2021) investigated the effect of rain on the fate of arthropod eDNA and found that rainfall or mist removes most terrestrial eDNA present on vegetation surfaces. Building on this idea, we performed a simple proof-of-principle analysis and hypothesized that (i) using a rainwash sampler, canopy invertebrates can be detected reliably by eDNA metabarcoding of the collected water shortly after a rain event, and that (ii) the taxonomic composition of collected communities will differ between the tree host taxa, with distinct host-specific invertebrates being found below different canopies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

It’s raining species: Rainwash eDNA metabarcoding as a minimally invasive method to assess tree canopy invertebrate diversity

Macher

Schuetz

Hörren

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Forest canopies are a highly diverse ecosystem, but despite several decades of intense research, there remain substantial gaps in our knowledge of their biodiversity and ecological interactions. One fundamental challenge in canopy research is the limited accessibility of the ecosystem. Consequently, previous studies have relied on the application of either highly invasive methods such as chemical knockdown, or on time-consuming and expensive setups such as canopy walkways or cranes. Therefore, time- and cost-efficient, ideally minimally invasive yet comprehensive applications are required to help close this knowledge gap. High-throughput metabarcoding of environmental DNA (eDNA) collected from water, soil, or air provides a minimally invasive method for biodiversity assessment, yet its potential for canopy biodiversity monitoring has not been explored. 2. Herein, we conducted metabarcoding of eDNA washed off the canopy via rainwater to explore its monitoring potential. We placed four 1 m2 rain samplers beneath the canopies of four different tree taxa prior to a major rain event, filtered eDNA from the collected rainwater, and performed cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) metabarcoding to profile the invertebrate community. Additionally, we collected and identified all specimens present in the rainwater for verification. 3. We detected 50 invertebrate species by eDNA metabarcoding, of which 43 were not physically present in the water sample, thus likely representing true canopy biodiversity signals. Furthermore, we observed distinct species occurrence patterns corresponding to the four tree taxa, suggesting that ecological patterns such as host specificity can be assessed using the method. 4. In conclusion, our study provides a proof of principle that rainwash eDNA metabarcoding offers a minimally invasive and comprehensive method for tree canopy diversity monitoring.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s raining species: Rainwash eDNA metabarcoding as a minimally invasive method to assess tree canopy invertebrate diversity

Macher

Schuetz

Hörren

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are still many questions regarding the efficacy of eDNA metabarcoding as a tool for biomonitoring that remain unanswered or underexplored. While studies have been conducted over a range of terrestrial ecosystems (e.g., tropical to arctic, Bohmann et al, 2014), aquatic studies still dominate (Barnes et al, 2014;Strickler et al, 2015;Tsuji et al, 2017;Williams et al, 2018), and the effects of abiotic variables on terrestrial eDNA longevity and transport remain mostly unexplored (Valentin et al 2021). Studies focusing on water samples suggest UV, pH, temperature, and bacterial abundance all have an impact on eDNA longevity (Barnes et al, 2014;Strickler et al, 2015;Tsuji et al, 2017;Williams et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

eDNA metabarcoding of log hollow sediments and soils highlights the importance of substrate type, frequency of sampling and animal size, for vertebrate species detection

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fauna monitoring often relies on visual monitoring techniques such as camera trapping, which have biases leading to underestimates of vertebrate species diversity. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has emerged as a new source of biodiversity data that may improve biomonitoring; however, eDNA‐based assessments of species richness remain relatively untested in terrestrial environments. We investigated the suitability of fallen log hollow sediment as a source of vertebrate eDNA, across two sites in southwestern Australia—one with a Mediterranean climate and the other semi‐arid. We compared two different approaches (camera trapping and eDNA metabarcoding) for monitoring of vertebrate species, and investigated the effect of other factors (frequency of species, timing of visits, frequency of sampling, and body size) on vertebrate species detectability. Metabarcoding of hollow sediments resulted in the detection of higher species richness in comparison (29 taxa: six birds, three reptiles, and 20 mammals) to metabarcoding of soil at the entrance of the hollow (13 taxa: three birds, two reptiles, and eight mammals). We detected 31 taxa in total with eDNA metabarcoding and 47 with camera traps, with 14 taxa detected by both (12 mammals and two birds). By comparing camera trap data with eDNA read abundance, we were able to detect vertebrates through eDNA metabarcoding that had visited the area up to two months prior to sample collection. Larger animals were more likely to be detected, and so were vertebrates that were identified multiple times in the camera traps. These findings demonstrate the importance of substrate selection, frequency of sampling, and animal size, on eDNA‐based monitoring. Future eDNA experimental design should consider all these factors as they affect detection of target taxa.

show abstract

“…Occasionally overlooked during the excitement of the latest, innovative eDNA application is the fact that eDNA itself represents an ecological entity worthy of study in its own right. After an organism sheds genetic material, but before a researcher or manager collects it, eDNA interacts with its surrounding environment in myriad ways that influence its production and accumulation (e.g., Maruyama et al, 2014;Klymus et al, 2015), changes in form and state in the environment (e.g., Jo et al, 2019;Barnes et al, 2021), transport (e.g., Andruszkiewicz et al, 2019;Valentin et al, 2021), and ultimately its fate (e.g., Tsuji et al, 2017;Foucher et al, 2020). Collectively, Barnes and Turner (2016) referred to these dynamic processes and functions as "the ecology of eDNA, " and they shape the inferences that researchers and managers can make based on detection (or non-detection) events.…”

Section: Foundationmentioning

confidence: 99%