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, Sébastien.

In: Environmental Health, 29.10.2019, p. 1-14.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

E-pub ahead of print

Standard

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, Sébastien.

In: Environmental Health, 29.10.2019, p. 1-14.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Gogarten, JF, Hoffmann, C, Arandjelovic, M, Sachse, A, Merkel, K, Dieguez, P, Agbor, A, Angedakin, S, Brazzola, G, Jones, S, Langergraber, KE, Lee, K, Marrocoli, S, Murai, M, Sommer, V, Kühl, H, Leendertz, FH & Calvignac-Spencer, S 2019, 'Fly-derived DNA and camera traps are complementary tools for assessing mammalian biodiversity', Environmental Health, pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.46

APA

Gogarten, J. F., Hoffmann, C., Arandjelovic, M., Sachse, A., Merkel, K., Dieguez, P., Agbor, A., Angedakin, S., Brazzola, G., Jones, S., Langergraber, K. E., Lee, K., Marrocoli, S., Murai, M., Sommer, V., Kühl, H., Leendertz, F. H., & Calvignac-Spencer, S. (2019). Fly-derived DNA and camera traps are complementary tools for assessing mammalian biodiversity. Environmental Health, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.46

Vancouver

Gogarten JF, Hoffmann C, Arandjelovic M, Sachse A, Merkel K, Dieguez P et al. Fly-derived DNA and camera traps are complementary tools for assessing mammalian biodiversity. Environmental Health. 2019 Oct 29;1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.46

Author

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, Sébastien. / Fly-derived DNA and camera traps are complementary tools for assessing mammalian biodiversity. In: Environmental Health. 2019 ; pp. 1-14.

BibTeX

@article{8ef5d2abde7e43c0a6d6e1cf51c958e8,
title = "Fly-derived DNA and camera traps are complementary tools for assessing mammalian biodiversity",
abstract = "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 = 643% 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.",
keywords = "Africa, biodiversity, environmental monitoring, invertebrates, mammals",
author = "Gogarten, {Jan F.} and Constanze Hoffmann and Mimi Arandjelovic and Andreas Sachse and Kevin Merkel and Paula Dieguez and Anthony Agbor and Samuel Angedakin and Gregory Brazzola and Sorrel Jones and Langergraber, {Kevin E.} and Kevin Lee and Sergio Marrocoli and Mizuki Murai and Volker Sommer and Hjalmar K{\"u}hl and Leendertz, {Fabian H.} and S{\'e}bastien Calvignac-Spencer",
year = "2019",
month = oct,
day = "29",
doi = "10.1002/edn3.46",
language = "English",
pages = "1--14",
journal = "Environmental Health",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fly-derived DNA and camera traps are complementary tools for assessing mammalian biodiversity

AU - Gogarten, Jan F.

AU - Hoffmann, Constanze

AU - Arandjelovic, Mimi

AU - Sachse, Andreas

AU - Merkel, Kevin

AU - Dieguez, Paula

AU - Agbor, Anthony

AU - Angedakin, Samuel

AU - Brazzola, Gregory

AU - Jones, Sorrel

AU - Langergraber, Kevin E.

AU - Lee, Kevin

AU - Marrocoli, Sergio

AU - Murai, Mizuki

AU - Sommer, Volker

AU - Kühl, Hjalmar

AU - Leendertz, Fabian H.

AU - Calvignac-Spencer, Sébastien

PY - 2019/10/29

Y1 - 2019/10/29

N2 - 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 = 643% 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.

AB - 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 = 643% 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.

KW - Africa

KW - biodiversity

KW - environmental monitoring

KW - invertebrates

KW - mammals

U2 - 10.1002/edn3.46

DO - 10.1002/edn3.46

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 14

JO - Environmental Health

JF - Environmental Health

ER -