Zur Kurzanzeige

2019-10-29Zeitschriftenartikel DOI: 10.25646/8666
Fly-derived DNA and camera traps are complementary tools for assessing mammalian biodiversity
dc.contributor.authorGogarten, Jan F.
dc.contributor.authorHoffmann, Constanze
dc.contributor.authorArandjelovic, Mimi
dc.contributor.authorSachse, Andreas
dc.contributor.authorMerkel, Kevin
dc.contributor.authorDieguez, Paula
dc.contributor.authorAgbor, Anthony
dc.contributor.authorAngedakin, Samuel
dc.contributor.authorBrazzola, Gregory
dc.contributor.authorJones, Sorrel
dc.contributor.authorLangergraber, Kevin E.
dc.contributor.authorLee, Kevin
dc.contributor.authorMarrocoli, Sergio
dc.contributor.authorMurai, Mizuki
dc.contributor.authorSommer, Volker
dc.contributor.authorKühl, Hjalmar
dc.contributor.authorLeendertz, Fabian H.
dc.contributor.authorCalvignac-Spencer, Sèbastien
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-17T07:10:35Z
dc.date.available2021-06-17T07:10:35Z
dc.date.issued2019-10-29none
dc.identifier.other10.1002/edn3.46
dc.identifier.urihttp://edoc.rki.de/176904/8389
dc.description.abstractBackground 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.eng
dc.language.isoengnone
dc.publisherRobert Koch-Institut
dc.rights(CC BY 3.0 DE) Namensnennung 3.0 Deutschlandger
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/
dc.subjectAfricaeng
dc.subjectbiodiversityeng
dc.subjectenvironmental monitoringeng
dc.subjectinvertebrateseng
dc.subjectmammalseng
dc.subject.ddc610 Medizin und Gesundheitnone
dc.titleFly-derived DNA and camera traps are complementary tools for assessing mammalian biodiversitynone
dc.typearticle
dc.identifier.urnurn:nbn:de:kobv:0257-176904/8389-6
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.25646/8666
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionnone
local.edoc.container-titleEnvironmental DNAnone
local.edoc.container-issn2637-4943none
local.edoc.pages14none
local.edoc.type-nameZeitschriftenartikel
local.edoc.container-typeperiodical
local.edoc.container-type-nameZeitschrift
local.edoc.container-urlhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/edn3.46none
local.edoc.container-publisher-nameWiley Online Librarynone
local.edoc.container-volume2none
local.edoc.container-issue1none
local.edoc.container-firstpage63none
local.edoc.container-lastpage76none
local.edoc.rki-departmentProjektgruppen/Nachwuchsgruppennone
dc.description.versionPeer Reviewednone

Zur Kurzanzeige