Logo of Robert Koch InstituteLogo of Robert Koch Institute
Publication Server of Robert Koch Instituteedoc
de|en
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
2019-10-29Zeitschriftenartikel DOI: 10.25646/8666
Fly-derived DNA and camera traps are complementary tools for assessing mammalian biodiversity
Gogarten, Jan F.
Hoffmann, Constanze
Arandjelovic, Mimi
Sachse, Andreas
Merkel, Kevin
Dieguez, Paula
Agbor, Anthony
Angedakin, Samuel
Brazzola, Gregory
Jones, Sorrel
Langergraber, Kevin E.
Lee, Kevin
Marrocoli, Sergio
Murai, Mizuki
Sommer, Volker
Kühl, Hjalmar
Leendertz, Fabian H.
Calvignac-Spencer, Sèbastien
Background Metabarcoding of vertebrate DNA found in invertebrates (iDNA) represents a potentially powerful tool for monitoring biodiversity. Preliminary evidence suggests fly iDNA biodiversity assessments compare favorably with established approaches such as camera trapping or line transects. Aims and Methods To assess whether fly-derived iDNA is consistently useful for biodiversity monitoring across a diversity of ecosystems, we compared metabarcoding of the mitochondrial 16S gene of fly pool-derived iDNA (range = 49–105 flies/site, N = 784 flies) with camera traps (range = 198–1,654 videos of mammals identified to the species level/site) at eight sites, representing different habitat types in five countries across tropical Africa. Results We detected a similar number of mammal species using fly-derived iDNA (range = 8–15 species/site) and camera traps (range = 8–27 species/site). However, the two approaches detected mostly different species (range = 6%–43% of species detected/site were detected with both methods), with fly-derived iDNA detecting on average smaller-bodied species than camera traps. Despite addressing different phylogenetic components of local mammalian communities, both methods resulted in similar beta-diversity estimates across sites and habitats. Conclusion These results support a growing body of evidence that fly-derived iDNA is a cost- and time-efficient tool that complements camera trapping in assessing mammalian biodiversity. Fly-derived iDNA may facilitate biomonitoring in terrestrial ecosystems at broad spatial and temporal scales, in much the same way as water eDNA has improved biomonitoring across aquatic ecosystems.
Files in this item
Thumbnail
Fly-derived DNA and camera traps are complementary tools for assessing mammalian biodiversity.pdf — Adobe PDF — 2.570 Mb
MD5: 43d6595cf32061464b018a1ad8cbcb3b
Cite
BibTeX
EndNote
RIS
(CC BY 3.0 DE) Namensnennung 3.0 Deutschland(CC BY 3.0 DE) Namensnennung 3.0 Deutschland
Details
Terms of Use Imprint Policy Data Privacy Statement Contact

The Robert Koch Institute is a Federal Institute

within the portfolio of the Federal Ministry of Health

© Robert Koch Institute

All rights reserved unless explicitly granted.

 
DOI
10.25646/8666
Permanent URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.25646/8666
HTML
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.25646/8666">http://dx.doi.org/10.25646/8666</a>