de Sousa, L. L., Silva, S. M. & Xavier, R. DNA metabarcoding in diet studies: Unveiling ecological aspects in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Environ. DNA 1, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.27 (2019).
Google Scholar
Pompanon, F. et al. Who is eating what: Diet assessment using next generation sequencing. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1931–1950. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05403.x (2012).
Google Scholar
Liu, M. X., Clarke, L. J., Baker, S. C., Jordan, G. J. & Burridge, C. P. A practical guide to DNA metabarcoding for entomological ecologists. Ecol. Entomol. 45, 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12831 (2020).
Google Scholar
Traugott, M., Thalinger, B., Wallinger, C. & Sint, D. Fish as predators and prey: DNA-based assessment of their role in food webs. J. Fish Biol. 98, 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14400 (2021).
Google Scholar
Clare, E. L. Molecular detection of trophic interactions: Emerging trends, distinct advantages, significant considerations and conservation applications. Evol. Appl. 7, 1144–1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12225 (2014).
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, 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14734 (2019).
Google Scholar
Ando, H. et al. Methodological trends and perspectives of animal dietary studies by noninvasive fecal DNA metabarcoding. Environ. DNA 2, 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.117 (2020).
Google Scholar
Masonick, P., Hernandez, M. & Weirauch, C. No guts, no glory: Gut content metabarcoding unveils the diet of a flower-associated coastal sage scrub predator. Ecosphere. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2712 (2019).
Google Scholar
Eitzinger, B. et al. Assessing changes in arthropod predator–prey interactions through DNA-based gut content analysis-variable environment, stable diet. Mol. Ecol. 28, 266–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14872 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kim, T. N. et al. Using high-throughput amplicon sequencing to determine diet of generalist lady beetles in agricultural landscapes. Biol. Control. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2022.104920 (2022).
Google Scholar
Wallinger, C. et al. The effect of plant identity and the level of plant decay on molecular gut content analysis in a herbivorous soil insect. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12032 (2013).
Google Scholar
Seabra, S. G. et al. PCR-based detection of prey DNA in the gut contents of the tiger-fly, Coenosia attenuata (Diptera: Muscidae), a biological control agent in Mediterranean greenhouses. Eur. J. Entomol. 118, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2021.035 (2021).
Google Scholar
Panni, S. & Pizzolotto, R. Fast molecular assay to detect the rate of decay of Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae) DNA in Pterostichus melas (Coleoptera: Carabidae) gut contents. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 53, 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13355-018-0564-x (2018).
Google Scholar
Greenstone, M. H., Payton, M. E., Weber, D. C. & Simmons, A. M. The detectability half-life in arthropod predator–prey research: What it is, why we need it, how to measure it, and how to use it. Mol. Ecol. 23, 3799–3813. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12552 (2014).
Google Scholar
Fülöp, D., Szita, E., Gerstenbrand, R., Tholt, G. & Samu, F. Consuming alternative prey does not influence the DNA detectability half-life of pest prey in spider gut contents. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7680 (2019).
Google Scholar
Zhang, G. F., Lu, Z. C., Wan, F. H. & Lovei, G. L. Real-time PCR quantification of Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) B-biotype remains in predator guts. Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 947–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01819.x (2007).
Google Scholar
Weber, D. C. & Lundgren, J. G. Detection of predation using qPCR: Effect of prey quantity, elapsed time, chaser diet, and sample preservation on detectable quantity of prey DNA. J. Insect Sci. https://doi.org/10.1673/031.009.4101 (2009).
Google Scholar
Paula, D. P. et al. Detection and decay rates of prey and prey symbionts in the gut of a predator through metagenomics. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 880–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12364 (2015).
Google Scholar
Hindson, B. J. et al. High-throughput droplet digital PCR system for absolute quantitation of DNA copy number. Anal. Chem. 83, 8604–8610. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac202028g (2011).
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13055 (2019).
Google Scholar
Nathan, L. M., Simmons, M., Wegleitner, B. J., Jerde, C. L. & Mahon, A. R. Quantifying environmental DNA signals for aquatic invasive species across multiple detection platforms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 12800–12806. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5034052 (2014).
Google Scholar
Kim, T. G., Jeong, S. Y. & Cho, K. S. Comparison of droplet digital PCR and quantitative real-time PCR for examining population dynamics of bacteria in soil. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 98, 6105–6113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-5794-4 (2014).
Google Scholar
Thalinger, B., Pütz, Y. & Traugott, M. Endpoint PCR coupled with capillary electrophoresis (celPCR) provides sensitive and quantitative measures of environmental DNA in singleplex and multiplex reactions. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254356 (2021).
Google Scholar
Mata, V. A. et al. How much is enough? Effects of technical and biological replication on metabarcoding dietary analysis. Mol. Ecol. 28, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14779 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sint, D., Guenay, Y., Mayer, R., Traugott, M. & Wallinger, C. The effect of plant identity and mixed feeding on the detection of seed DNA in regurgitates of carabid beetles. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10834–10846. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4536 (2018).
Google Scholar
Nielsen, J. M., Clare, E. L., Hayden, B., Brett, M. T. & Kratina, P. Diet tracing in ecology: Method comparison and selection. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12869 (2018).
Google Scholar
Schrader, C., Schielke, A., Ellerbroek, L. & Johne, R. PCR inhibitors—Occurrence, properties and removal. J. Appl. Microbiol. 113, 1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05384.x (2012).
Google Scholar
Juen, A. & Traugott, M. Amplification facilitators and multiplex PCR: Tools to overcome PCR-inhibition in DNA-gut-content analysis of soil-living invertebrates. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 1872–1879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.11.034 (2006).
Google Scholar
Wallinger, C. et al. Evaluation of an automated protocol for efficient and reliable DNA extraction of dietary samples. Ecol. Evol. 7, 6382–6389. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3197 (2017).
Google Scholar
Marotz, C. et al. DNA extraction for streamlined metagenomics of diverse environmental samples. Biotechniques 62, 290–293. https://doi.org/10.2144/000114559 (2017).
Google Scholar
Dingle, T. C., Sedlak, R. H., Cook, L. & Jerome, K. R. Tolerance of droplet-digital PCR vs real-time quantitative PCR to inhibitory substances. Clin. Chem. 59, 1670–1672. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2013.211045 (2013).
Google Scholar
Racki, N., Dreo, T., Gutierrez-Aguirre, I., Blejec, A. & Ravnikar, M. Reverse transcriptase droplet digital PCR shows high resilience to PCR inhibitors from plant, soil and water samples. Plant Methods https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-014-0042-6 (2014).
Google Scholar
Juen, A. & Traugott, M. Detecting predation and scavenging by DNA gut-content analysis: A case study using a soil insect predator-prey system. Oecologia 142, 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1736-7 (2005).
Google Scholar
Lundgren, J. G. & Lehman, M. Bacterial gut symbionts contribute to seed digestion in an omnivorous beetle. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010831 (2010).
Google Scholar
Waldner, T. & Traugott, M. DNA-based analysis of regurgitates: A noninvasive approach to examine the diet of invertebrate consumers. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 12, 669–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2012.03135.x (2012).
Google Scholar
Kamenova, S. et al. Comparing three types of dietary samples for prey DNA decay in an insect generalist predator. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 966–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12775 (2018).
Google Scholar
Cheeseman, M. T. & Pritchard, G. Spatial organization of digestive processes in an adult carabid beetle, Scaphinotus marginatus (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Can. J. Zool. 62, 1200–1203. https://doi.org/10.1139/z84-173 (1984).
Google Scholar
Sunderland, K. D. Diet of some predatory arthropods in cereal crops. J. Appl. Ecol. 12, 507–515. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402171 (1975).
Google Scholar
Sunderland, K. D., Lovei, G. L. & Fenlon, J. Diets and reproductive phenologies of the introduced ground beetles Harpalus affinis and Clivina australasiae (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in New Zealand. Aust. J. Zool. 43, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1071/zo9950039 (1995).
Google Scholar
Deagle, B. E. & Tollit, D. J. Quantitative analysis of prey DNA in pinniped faeces: Potential to estimate diet composition?. Conserv. Genet. 8, 743–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-006-9197-7 (2007).
Google Scholar
Snider, A. M., Bonisoli-Alquati, A., Perez-Umphrey, A. A., Stouffer, P. C. & Taylor, S. S. Metabarcoding of stomach contents and fecal samples provide similar insights about Seaside Sparrow diet. Ornithol. Appl. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duab060 (2022).
Google Scholar
Paula, D. P., Timbo, R. V., Togawa, R. C., Vogler, A. P. & Andow, D. A. Quantitative prey species detection in predator guts across multiple trophic levels by mapping unassembled shotgun reads. Mol Ecol Resour 23, 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13690 (2023).
Google Scholar
Elbrecht, V. & Leese, F. Can DNA-based ecosystem assessments quantify species abundance? Testing primer bias and biomass-sequence relationships with an innovative metabarcoding protocol. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130324 (2015).
Google Scholar
Krehenwinkel, H. et al. Estimating and mitigating amplification bias in qualitative and quantitative arthropod metabarcoding. Sci. Rep. 7, 17668. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17333-x (2017).
Google Scholar
Piñol, J., San Andrés, V., Clare, E. L., Mir, G. & Symondson, W. O. C. A pragmatic approach to the analysis of diets of generalist predators: The use of next-generation sequencing with no blocking probes. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12156 (2014).
Google Scholar
Baksay, S. et al. Experimental quantification of pollen with DNA metabarcoding using ITS1 and trnL. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61198-6 (2020).
Google Scholar
Valentini, A. et al. New perspectives in diet analysis based on DNA barcoding and parallel pyrosequencing: The trnL approach. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 9, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02352.x (2009).
Google Scholar
Murray, D. C. et al. DNA-based faecal dietary analysis: A comparison of qPCR and high throughput sequencing approaches. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025776 (2011).
Google Scholar
Hansen, B. K. et al. From DNA to biomass: Opportunities and challenges in species quantification of bulk fisheries products. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 77, 2557–2566. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa115 (2020).
Google Scholar
Pawluczyk, M. et al. Quantitative evaluation of bias in PCR amplification and next-generation sequencing derived from metabarcoding samples. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407, 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-014-8435-y (2015).
Google Scholar
Piñol, J., Mir, G., Gomez-Polo, P. & Agusti, 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12355 (2015).
Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-013-0146-9 (2013).
Google Scholar
Richardson, R. T. et al. Quantitative multi-locus metabarcoding and waggle dance interpretation reveal honey bee spring foraging patterns in Midwest agroecosystems. Mol. Ecol. 28, 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14975 (2019).
Google Scholar
Taberlet, P. et al. Power and limitations of the chloroplast trnL (UAA) intron for plant DNA barcoding. Nucleic Acids Res. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl938 (2007).
Google Scholar
Briem, F. et al. Identifying plant DNA in the sponging-feeding insect pest Drosophila suzukii. J. Pest. Sci. 91, 985–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-0963-3 (2018).
Google Scholar
Frei, B., Guenay, Y., Bohan, D. A., Traugott, M. & Wallinger, C. Molecular analysis indicates high levels of carabid weed seed consumption in cereal fields across Central Europe. J. Pest. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-019-01109-5 (2019).
Google Scholar
Luff, M. L. The biology of the ground beetle Harpalus rufipes in a strawberry field in Northumberland. Ann. Appl. Biol. 94, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1980.tb03907.x (1980).
Google Scholar
Illumina. Effects of index Misassignment on multiplexing and downstream analysis. https://www.illumina.com/content/dam/illumina-marketing/documents/products/whitepapers/index-hopping-white-paper-770-2017-004.pdf?linkId=36607862 accessed 2022-11-10 (2018).
Guenay-Greunke, Y., Bohan, D. A., Traugott, M. & Wallinger, C. Handling of targeted amplicon sequencing data focusing on index hopping and demultiplexing using a nested metabarcoding approach in ecology. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98018-4 (2021).
Google Scholar
Staudacher, K., Wallinger, C., Schallhart, N. & Traugott, M. Detecting ingested plant DNA in soil-living insect larvae. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 346–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.10.022 (2011).
Google Scholar
Espunyes, J. et al. Comparing the accuracy of PCR-capillary electrophoresis and cuticle microhistological analysis for assessing diet composition in ungulates: A case study with Pyrenean chamois. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216345 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wallinger, C. et al. Detection of seed DNA in regurgitates of granivorous carabid beetles. Bull. Entomol. Res. 105, 728–735. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000748531500067x (2015).
Google Scholar
Taberlet, P., Gielly, L., Pautou, G. & Bouvet, J. Universal primers for amplification of 3 noncoding regions of chloroplast DNA. Plant Mol. Biol. 17, 1105–1109. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00037152 (1991).
Google Scholar
FastQC: A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data [Online]. (2010).
Danecek, P. et al. Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. Gigascience https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giab008 (2021).
Google Scholar
Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. Next Gener. Seq. Data Anal. https://doi.org/10.14806/ej.17.1.200 (2011).
Google Scholar
Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–2461. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 (2010).
Google Scholar
Camacho, C. et al. BLAST plus: Architecture and applications. BMC Bioinform. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-421 (2009).
Google Scholar
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. (Springer, 2016).
Arnold, J. B. ggthemes: Extra Themes, Scales and Geoms for ‘ggplot2’. R package version 4.2.0 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggthemes (2019).
Hebbali, A. olsrr: Tools for Building OLS Regression Models. R package version 0.5.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=olsrr (2020).
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An {R} Companion to Applied Regression. 2nd ed. (Sage, 2011).
Zeileis, A. & Hothorn, T. Diagnostic checking in regression relationships. R News 2, 7–10 (2002).
Zeileis, A. Econometric computing with HC and HAC covariance matrix estimators. J. Stat. Softw. 11, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v011.i10 (2004).
Google Scholar
Zeileis, A., Köll, S. & Graham, N. Various versatile variances: An object-oriented implementation of clustered covariances in {R}. J. Stat. Softw. 95, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v095.i01 (2020).
Google Scholar
boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions v. R package version 1.3-28 (2021).
Davison, A. C. & Hinkley, D. V. Bootstrap Methods and Their Applications. (Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Source: Ecology - nature.com
