Buxton, R. D. Forest management and the pine processionary moth. Outlook Agric. 12, 34–39 (1983).
Gatto, P. et al. Economic assessment of managing processionary moth in pine forests: A case-study in Portugal. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 683–691 (2009).
Google Scholar
Battisti, A., Larsson, S. & Roques, A. Processionary moths and associated urtication risk: Global change–driven effects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 62, 323–342 (2017).
Google Scholar
Moneo, I. et al. Medical and veterinary impact of the urticating processionary larvae. In Processionary Moths and Climate Change: An Update, 359–410 (Springer, 2015).
Battisti, A. et al. Expansion of geographic range in the pine processionary moth caused by increased winter temperatures. Ecol. Appl. 15, 2084–2096 (2005).
Kerdelhué, C. et al. Quaternary history and contemporary patterns in a currently expanding species. BMC Evol. Biol. 9, 220 (2009).
Google Scholar
Robinet, C., Rousselet, J., Pineau, P., Miard, F. & Roques, A. Are heat waves susceptible to mitigate the expansion of a species progressing with global warming?. Ecol. Evol. 3, 2947–2957 (2013).
Google Scholar
Auger-Rozenberg, M. A. et al. Ecological responses of parasitoids, predators and associated insect communities to the climate-driven expansion of the pine processionary moth. In Processionary Moths and Climate Change: An Update, 311–357 (Springer, 2015).
Garin, I. et al. Bats from different foraging guilds prey upon the pine processionary moth. PeerJ 7, e7169 (2019).
Google Scholar
Charbonnier, Y., Barbaro, L., Theillout, A. & Jactel, H. Numerical and functional responses of forest bats to a major insect pest in pine plantations. PLoS ONE 9, e109488 (2014).
Google Scholar
Goiti, U., Aihartza, J. R., Almenar, D., Salsamendi, E. & Garin, I. Seasonal foraging by Rhinolophus euryale (Rhinolophidae) in an Atlantic rural landscape in northern Iberian Peninsula. Acta Chiropterol. 8, 141–155 (2006).
Russo, D. et al. Habitat selection in sympatric Rhinolophus mehelyi and R. euryale (Mammalia: Chiroptera). J. Zool. 266, 327–332 (2005).
Vincent, S., Nemoz, M. & Aulagnier, S. Activity and foraging habitats of Miniopterus schreibersii (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae) in southern France: Implications for its conservation. Hystrix Ital. J. Mammal. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-22.1-4524 (2010).
Google Scholar
Rydell, J. Site fidelity in the northern bat (Eptesicus nilssoni) during pregnancy and lactation. J. Mammal. 70, 614–617 (1989).
Baroja, U. et al. Bats actively track and prey on grape pest populations. Ecol. Indic. 126, 107718 (2021).
Aldasoro, M. et al. Gaining ecological insight on dietary allocation among horseshoe bats through molecular primer combination. PLoS ONE 14, e0220081 (2019).
Google Scholar
Baroja, U. et al. Pest consumption in a vineyard system by the lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros). PLoS ONE 14, e0219265 (2019).
Google Scholar
Vallejo, N. et al. The diet of the notch-eared bat (Myotis emarginatus) across the Iberian Peninsula analysed by amplicon metabarcoding. Hystrix Ital. J. Mammal. 30, 59–64 (2019).
Bohmann, K. et al. Molecular diet analysis of two African free-tailed bats (Molossidae) using high throughput sequencing. PLoS ONE 6, e21441 (2011).
Google Scholar
Pompanon, F. et al. Who is eating what: Diet assessment using next generation sequencing?. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1931–1950 (2012).
Google Scholar
Elbrecht, V. & Leese, F. Validation and development of COI metabarcoding primers for freshwater macroinvertebrate bioassessment. Front. Environ. Sci. 5, 11 (2017).
Evans, N. T. et al. Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 29–41 (2016).
Google Scholar
Harper, L. R. et al. Needle in a haystack? A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding and targeted qPCR for detection of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Ecol. Evol. 8, 6330–6341 (2018).
Google Scholar
Deagle, B. E. et al. Counting with DNA in metabarcoding studies: How should we convert sequence reads to dietary data?. Mol. Ecol. 28(2), 391–406 (2019).
Google Scholar
Piñol, J., Mir, G., Gomez-Polo, P. & Agustí, N. Universal and blocking primer mismatches limit the use of high-throughput DNA sequencing for the quantitative metabarcoding of arthropods. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 819–830 (2015).
Google Scholar
Jarman, S. N., Deagle, B. E. & Gales, N. J. Group-specific polymerase chain reaction for DNA-based analysis of species diversity and identity in dietary samples. Mol. Ecol. 13, 1313–1322 (2004).
Google Scholar
Piggott, M. P. Evaluating the effects of laboratory protocols on eDNA detection probability for an endangered freshwater fish. Ecol. Evol. 6, 2739–2750 (2016).
Google Scholar
Knudsen, S. W. et al. Species-specific detection and quantification of environmental DNA from marine fishes in the Baltic Sea. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 510, 31–45 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kaňuch, P., Hájková, P., Řehák, Z. & Bryja, J. A rapid PCR-based test for species identification of two cryptic bats Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus and its application on museum and dropping samples. Acta Chiropterol. 9, 277–282 (2007).
Czernik, M. et al. Fast and efficient DNA-based method for winter diet analysis from stools of three cervids: Moose, red deer, and roe deer. Acta Theriol. 58, 379–386 (2013).
Schattanek, P., Riccabona, S. A., Rennstam Rubbmark, O. & Traugott, M. Detection of prey DNA in bat feces: Effects of time since feeding, meal size, and prey identity. Environ. DNA 3, 959–969 (2021).
Martin, K. J. & Rygiewicz, P. T. Fungal-specific PCR primers developed for analysis of the ITS region of environmental DNA extracts. BMC Microbiol. 5, 28 (2005).
Google Scholar
Nowakowska, J. A., Malewski, T., Tereba, A. & Oszako, T. Rapid diagnosis of pathogenic Phytophthora species in soil by real-time PCR. For. Pathol. 47, e12303 (2017).
Bott, N. J. et al. Toward routine, DNA-based detection methods for marine pests. Biotechnol. Adv. 28, 706–714 (2010).
Google Scholar
Schmidt, B. R., Kery, M., Ursenbacher, S., Hyman, O. J. & Collins, J. P. Site occupancy models in the analysis of environmental DNA presence/absence surveys: A case study of an emerging amphibian pathogen. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 646–653 (2013).
McCracken, G. F., Brown, V. A., Eldridge, M. & Westbrook, J. K. The use of fecal DNA to verify and quantify the consumption of agricultural pests. Bat Res. News 46, 195–196 (2005).
McCracken, G. F. et al. Bats track and exploit changes in insect pest populations. PLoS ONE 7, e43839 (2012).
Google Scholar
Marshall, O. J. PerlPrimer: Cross-platform, graphical primer design for standard, bisulphite and real-time PCR. Bioinformatics 20, 2471–2472 (2004).
Google Scholar
Simonato, M. et al. Host and phenology shifts in the evolution of the social moth genus Thaumetopoea. PLoS ONE 8, e57192 (2013).
Google Scholar
Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 772–780 (2013).
Google Scholar
Aljanabi, S. M. & Martinez, I. Universal and rapid salt-extraction of high quality genomic DNA for PCR-based techniques. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 4692–4693 (1997).
Google Scholar
Razgour, O. et al. High-throughput sequencing offers insight into mechanisms of resource partitioning in cryptic bat species. Ecol. Evol. 1, 556–570 (2011).
Google Scholar
Page, A. & Gomez-Curet, I. Assuring reliability of qPCR & RT-PCR results: Use of spectrophotometry on nucleic acid samples before experiment improves outcome. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. News 31(16), 26–26 (2011).
Hall, T. A. ioEdit: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 41, 41 (1999).
Kearse, M. et al. Geneious basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organisation and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28, 1647–1649 (2012).
Google Scholar
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (2020). (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 10 May 2021.
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S. & Sarkar, D. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R Package Version 3, 1–89 (2021).
Wickham, H. Ggplot2: Elegrant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).
Google Scholar
Arrizabalaga-Escudero, A. et al. Trait-based functional dietary analysis provides a better insight into the foraging ecology of bats. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 1587–1600 (2019).
Google Scholar
Curtsdotter, A. et al. Ecosystem function in predator–prey food webs—Confronting dynamic models with empirical data. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 196–210 (2019).
Google Scholar
Michalko, R., Pekár, S. & Entling, M. H. An updated perspective on spiders as generalist predators in biological control. Oecologia 189, 21–36 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sun, C. et al. polymerase chain reaction assisted by metal–organic frameworks. Chem. Sci. 11, 797–802 (2020).
Google Scholar
Roux, K. H. Optimisation and troubleshooting in PCR. Cold Spring Harbor Protoc. 4, 66 (2009).
Xia, Z. et al. Conventional versus real-time quantitative PCR for rare species detection. Ecol. Evol. 8, 11799–11807 (2018).
Google Scholar
Yang, T. B., Liu, J. & Chen, J. Compared with conventional PCR assay, qPCR assay greatly improves the detection efficiency of predation. Ecol. Evol. 10, 7713–7722 (2020).
Google Scholar
Mauvisseau, Q. et al. Influence of accuracy, repeatability and detection probability in the reliability of species-specific eDNA based approaches. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10 (2019).
Smith, C. J. & Osborn, A. M. Advantages and limitations of quantitative PCR (Q-PCR)-based approaches in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 67, 6–20 (2009).
Google Scholar
King, R. A., Read, D. S., Traugott, M. & Symondson, W. O. C. Molecular analysis of predation: A review of best practice for DNA-based approaches. Mol. Ecol. 17, 947–963 (2008).
Google Scholar
Burbank, L. P. & Ortega, B. C. Novel amplification targets for rapid detection and differentiation of Xylella fastidiosa subspecies fastidiosa and multiplex in plant and insect tissues. J. Microbiol. Methods 155, 8–18 (2018).
Google Scholar
Alberdi, A. et al. Promises and pitfalls of using high-throughput sequencing for diet analysis. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 327–348 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sow, A., Haran, J., Benoit, L., Galan, M. & Brévault, T. DNA metabarcoding as a tool for disentangling food webs in agroecosystems. Insects 11, 294 (2020).
Google Scholar
Wood, S. A. et al. A comparison of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (PCR), quantitative PCR and metabarcoding for species-specific detection in environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 1407–1419 (2019).
Google Scholar
Maslo, B. et al. Chirosurveillance: The use of native bats to detect invasive agricultural pests. PLoS ONE 12, e0173321 (2017).
Google Scholar
Purcell, R. V. et al. Comparison of standard, quantitative and digital PCR in the detection of enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–8 (2016).
Google Scholar
Behrens-Chapuis, S., Herder, F. & Geiger, M. F. Adding DNA barcoding to stream monitoring protocols—What’s the additional value and congruence between morphological and molecular identification approaches?. PLoS ONE 16(1), e0244598 (2021).
Google Scholar
Source: Ecology - nature.com
