eDNA metabarcoding for biodiversity assessment, generalist predators as sampling assistants
With an accelerating negative impact of anthropogenic actions on natural ecosystems, non-invasive biodiversity assessments are becoming increasingly crucial. As a consequence, the interest in the application of environmental DNA (eDNA) survey techniques has increased. The use of eDNA extracted from...
Saved in:
Published in | Scientific reports Vol. 11; no. 1; p. 6820 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London
Nature Publishing Group UK
25.03.2021
Nature Publishing Group Nature Research Nature Portfolio |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | With an accelerating negative impact of anthropogenic actions on natural ecosystems, non-invasive biodiversity assessments are becoming increasingly crucial. As a consequence, the interest in the application of environmental DNA (eDNA) survey techniques has increased. The use of eDNA extracted from faeces from generalist predators, have recently been described as “biodiversity capsules” and suggested as a complementary tool for improving current biodiversity assessments. In this study, using faecal samples from two generalist omnivore species, the Eurasian badger and the red fox, we evaluated the applicability of eDNA metabarcoding in determining dietary composition, compared to macroscopic diet identification techniques. Subsequently, we used the dietary information obtained to assess its contribution to biodiversity assessments. Compared to classic macroscopic techniques, we found that eDNA metabarcoding detected more taxa, at higher taxonomic resolution, and proved to be an important technique to verify the species identification of the predator from field collected faeces. Furthermore, we showed how dietary analyses complemented field observations in describing biodiversity by identifying consumed flora and fauna that went unnoticed during field observations. While diet analysis approaches could not substitute field observations entirely, we suggest that their integration with other methods might overcome intrinsic limitations of single techniques in future biodiversity surveys. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 Scientific Reports |
ISSN: | 2045-2322 2045-2322 |
DOI: | 10.1038/s41598-021-85488-9 |