Towards a multisensor station for automated biodiversity monitoring

Wägele, Johann‐Wolfgang; Bodesheim, Paul; Bourlat, Sarah J.; Denzler, Joachim; Diepenbroek, Michael; Fonseca, Vera G.; Frommolt, Karl‐Heinz; Geiger, Matthias F.; Gemeinholzer, Birgit; Glöckner, Frank Oliver; Haucke, Timm; Kirse, Ameli; Koelpin, Alexander; Kostadinov, Ivaylo; Kühl, Hjalmar S.; Kurth, Frank; Lasseck, Mario; Liedke, Sascha; Losch, Florian; Müller, Sandra; Petrovskaya, Natalia; Piotrowski, Krzysztof; Radig, Bernd; Scherber, Christoph; Schoppmann, Lukas; Schulz, Jan; Steinhage, Volker; Tschan, Georg F.; Vautz, Wolfgang; Velotto, Domenico; Weigend, Maximilian; Wildermann, Stefan

doi:10.1016/j.baae.2022.01.003

Cited by 44 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 238 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We suggest that complementary fauna survey methods are needed to detect all vertebrate species. Wägele et al (2022), similarly propose multisensor techniques, including eDNA, for automated monitoring of biodiversity. We recommend the use of hollow sediment for molecular‐based terrestrial biomonitoring, particularly if mammals are the target taxa.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…suggest that complementary fauna survey methods are needed to detect all vertebrate species Wägele et al (2022),. similarly propose multisensor techniques, including eDNA, for automated monitoring of biodiversity.…”

mentioning

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

show abstract

“…This staggering diversity (with at least 80% of insect species remaining undescribed), combined with our poor knowledge of their distributions and ecology [2] and the spatiotemporal heterogeneity of their occurrence [3], form major challenges to the study of insects and their responses to environmental changes. Recent reports of long-term declines in insect biomass and abundances [4,5], in combination with the emergence of new technologies [6][7][8], have led to calls for [9], and the establishment of, new research projects for monitoring populations and assemblages of insects and other invertebrates [10,11].…”

Section: Technological Advancement For Insect Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AMMODs (automated multisensor stations for monitoring of species diversity) [10] (Figure ID) are analogous to weather stations; they are autonomous samplers that monitor plants, birds, mammals and insects. The technology consists of six modules: (i) automatised visual monitoring and image analyses (mammals and moths), (ii) detection of smellscapes using volatile organic compounds, (iii) malaise and pollen traps for metabarcoding, (iv) automated bioacoustic monitoring (birds and bats), (v) development of a base station, and (vi) data management and cross-platform analysis.…”

Section: Radarmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For assessment of whole ecological assemblages within a region, multisensor biodiversity 'weather' stations [10] may become particularly useful. These stations simultaneously use multiple technologies and trap types to monitor a broad range of organisms, including insects, plants, and vertebrates [see the AMMOD (automated multisensor stations for monitoring of species diversity) project in Box 2].…”

Section: Trends In Ecology and Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation