A comparison of live versus kill pitfall traps to assess the diet of carabids through a metabarcoding approach

Author:

Graux Yohann1ORCID,Querejeta Marina12,Gaba Sabrina34,Bretagnolle Vincent35,Boyer Stéphane1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. UMR 7261 Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l'Insecte CNRS Tours France

2. Department of Functional Biology University of Oviedo Asturias Spain

3. LTSER Zone Atelier Plaine & Val de Sèvre Villiers‐en‐Bois France

4. USC 1339 Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, INRAE CNRS and La Rochelle Université Villiers‐en‐Bois France

5. UMR 7372 CEBC, CNRS & La Rochelle Université Villiers‐en‐Bois France

Abstract

AbstractMetabarcoding approaches are powerful tools to unravel trophic relationships between predators and prey. To apply metabarcoding analyses on invertebrate gut contents, specimens must be well preserved from DNA degradation, thus the trapping method should be selected accordingly. Dry pitfall traps are commonly assumed to provide a better DNA preservation than traps that use a killing agent. However, this assumption has never been specifically tested for gut content analyses. In our study, we compared how two types of pitfall trapping, dry vs. with brine, affect the conservation of prey DNA contained in the digestive tract of predators and subsequent metabarcoding analyses. We placed dry and ‘classic’ pitfall traps in oilseed rape fields within an intensive agricultural area in the French Nouvelle‐Aquitaine region. Traps were set up in autumn and compared for carabid trapping efficiency as well as our capacity to retrieve dietary information from the digestive tract of the main carabid species, Nebria salina (Fairmaire & Laboulbène) and Calathus fuscipes (Goeze) (both Coleoptera: Carabidae). The PCR success rate was higher in dry pitfall traps compared to classic ones for N. salina. We hypothesise that this was due to the presence of PCR inhibitors in the gut of this species. The ability to sequence prey DNA did not differ between specimens caught in both trap types. The list of preyed species was similar between both trap types. However, sequencing yielded more prey operational taxonomic units (OTUs) from specimens caught in dry pitfall traps, leading to differences in prey community composition and a greater ability to reconstruct prey community. Our analyses also shed light on the prey spectrum of C. fuscipes and N. salina in oilseed rape in autumn.

Funder

Agence Nationale de la Recherche

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Insect Science,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Reference91 articles.

1. Problems of interpreting arthropod sampling with pitfall traps;Adis J;Zoologischer Anzeiger Jena,1979

2. Does your preservative preserve? A comparison of the efficacy of some pitfall trap solutions in preserving the internal reproductive organs of dung beetles

3. A tale of two fluids: does storing specimens together in liquid preservative cause DNA cross‐contamination in molecular gut‐content studies?

4. Species trait selection along a prescribed fire chronosequence

5. BatesD&MaechlerM(2013)lme4: Linear Mixed‐Effects Models Using S4 Classes. R package v. 0.999999‐0.http://cran.r‐project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3