Journal list menu
Estimating the biodiversity of terrestrial invertebrates on a forested island using DNA barcodes and metabarcoding data
Corresponding Author
Andrew Dopheide
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research, Private Bag 92169, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorLeah K. Tooman
The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research, Private Bag 92169, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorStefanie Grosser
Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Division of Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Biology, LMU Munich, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539, 80539 Munich, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorBarbara Agabiti
Centre for Computational Evolution, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorBirgit Rhode
Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorDong Xie
Centre for Computational Evolution, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorMark I. Stevens
South Australian Museum, North Terrace, GPO Box 234, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 Australia
School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 Australia
Search for more papers by this authorNicola Nelson
School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, 6140 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorThomas R. Buckley
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorAlexei J. Drummond
Centre for Computational Evolution, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorRichard D. Newcomb
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research, Private Bag 92169, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Andrew Dopheide
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research, Private Bag 92169, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorLeah K. Tooman
The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research, Private Bag 92169, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorStefanie Grosser
Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Division of Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Biology, LMU Munich, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539, 80539 Munich, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorBarbara Agabiti
Centre for Computational Evolution, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorBirgit Rhode
Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorDong Xie
Centre for Computational Evolution, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorMark I. Stevens
South Australian Museum, North Terrace, GPO Box 234, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 Australia
School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 Australia
Search for more papers by this authorNicola Nelson
School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, 6140 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorThomas R. Buckley
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Manaaki Whenua—Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorAlexei J. Drummond
Centre for Computational Evolution, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorRichard D. Newcomb
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research, Private Bag 92169, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Invertebrates are a major component of terrestrial ecosystems, however, estimating their biodiversity is challenging. We compiled an inventory of invertebrate biodiversity along an elevation gradient on the temperate forested island of Hauturu, New Zealand, by DNA barcoding of specimens obtained from leaf litter samples and pitfall traps. We compared the barcodes and biodiversity estimates from this data set with those from a parallel DNA metabarcoding analysis of soil from the same locations, and with pre-existing sequences in reference databases, before exploring the use of combined data sets as a basis for estimating total invertebrate biodiversity. We obtained 1,282 28S and 1,610 COI barcodes from a total of 1,947 invertebrate specimens, which were clustered into 247 (28S) and 366 (COI) OTUs, of which ≤ 10% were represented in GenBank. Coleoptera were most abundant (730 sequenced specimens), followed by Hymenoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera, and Amphipoda. The most abundant OTU from both the 28S (153 sequences) and COI (140 sequences) data sets was an undescribed beetle from the family Salpingidae. Based on the occurrences of COI OTUs along the elevation gradient, we estimated there are ~1,000 arthropod species (excluding mites) on Hauturu, including 770 insects, of which 344 are beetles. A DNA metabarcoding analysis of soil DNA from the same sites resulted in the identification of similar numbers of OTUs in most invertebrate groups compared with the DNA barcoding, but less than 10% of the DNA barcoding COI OTUs were also detected by the metabarcoding analysis of soil DNA. A mark–recapture analysis based on the overlap between these data sets estimated the presence of approximately 6,800 arthropod species (excluding mites) on the island, including ~3,900 insects. Estimates of New Zealand-wide biodiversity for selected arthropod groups based on matching of the COI DNA barcodes with pre-existing reference sequences suggested over 13,200 insect species are present, including 4,000 Coleoptera, 2,200 Diptera, and 2,700 Hymenoptera species, and 1,000 arachnid species (excluding mites). These results confirm that metabarcoding analyses of soil DNA tends to recover different components of terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity compared to traditional invertebrate sampling, but the combined methods provide a novel basis for estimating invertebrate biodiversity.
Supporting Information
Filename | Description |
---|---|
eap1877-sup-0001-AppendixS1.pdfPDF document, 2.2 MB |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
Literature Cited
- Altschul, S. F., W. Gish, W. Miller, E. W. Myers, and D. J. Lipman. 1990. Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology 215: 403–410.
- Andersen, K., K. L. Bird, M. Rasmussen, J. Haile, H. Breuning-Madsen, K. H. Kjaer, L. Orlando, T. P. Gilbert, and E. Willerslev. 2012. Meta-barcoding of “dirt” DNA from soil reflects vertebrate biodiversity. Molecular Ecology 21: 1966–1979.
- Anderson, M. J. 2001. A new method for non parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26: 32–46.
- Armstrong, K. F., and S. L. Ball. 2005. DNA barcodes for biosecurity: invasive species identification. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 1813–1823.
- Bik, H. M., D. L. Porazinska, S. Creer, J. G. Caporaso, R. Knight, and W. K. Thomas. 2012. Sequencing our way towards understanding global eukaryotic biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27: 233–243.
- Boulinier, T., J. D. Nichols, J. R. Sauer, J. E. Hines, and K. H. Pollock. 1998. Estimating species richness: the importance of heterogeneity in species detectability. Ecology 79: 1018–1028.
- Bragg, L., G. Stone, M. Imelfort, P. Hugenholtz, and G. W. Tyson. 2012. Fast, accurate error-correction of amplicon pyrosequences using Acacia. Nature Methods 9: 425–426.
- Buckley, T. R., S. James, J. Allwood, S. Bartlam, R. Howitt, and D. Prada. 2011. Phylogenetic analysis of New Zealand earthworms (Oligochaeta: Megascolecidae) reveals ancient clades and cryptic taxonomic diversity. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 58: 85–96.
- Buckley, T. R., M. Krosch, and R. A. B. Leschen. 2015. Evolution of New Zealand insects: summary and prospectus for future research. Austral Entomology 54: 1–27.
- Burns, J. M., D. H. Janzen, M. Hajibabaei, W. Hallwachs, and P. D. N. Hebert. 2008. DNA barcodes and cryptic species of skipper butterflies in the genus Perichares in Area de Conservacion Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 6350–6355.
- Chapman, D. 1951. Some properties of the hypergeometric distribution with applications to zoological sample censuses. University of California Publications in Statistics 1: 131–160.
- Clare, E. L., F. J. J. Chain, J. E. Littlefair, M. E. Cristescu, and K. Deiner. 2016. The effects of parameter choice on defining molecular operational taxonomic units and resulting ecological analyses of metabarcoding data. Genome 59: 981–990.
- Cook, L. G., R. D. Edwards, M. D. Crisp, and N. B. Hardy. 2010. Need morphology always be required for new species descriptions? Invertebrate Systematics 24: 322–326.
- Czechowski, P., D. White, L. Clarke, A. McKay, A. Cooper, and M. I. Stevens. 2016. Age-related environmental gradients influence invertebrate distribution in the prince Charles Mountains, east Antarctica. Royal Society Open Science 3: 160296.
- Czechowski, P., L. J. Clarke, A. Cooper, and M. I. Stevens. 2017. A primer to metabarcoding surveys of Antarctic terrestrial biodiversity. Antarctic Science 29: 3–15.
- Decaëns, T. 2010. Macroecological patterns in soil communities. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19: 287–302.
- Drummond, A. J., et al. 2015. Evaluating a multigene environmental DNA approach for biodiversity assessment. GigaScience 4: 46.
- Edgar, R. C. 2010. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26: 2460–2461.
- Edgar, R. C. 2013. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nature Methods 10: 996–998.
- Ekrem, T., E. Willassen, and E. Stur. 2007. A comprehensive DNA sequence library is essential for identification with DNA barcodes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 43: 530–542.
- Folmer, O., M. Black, W. Hoeh, R. Lutz, and R. Vrijenhoek. 1994. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology 3: 294–299.
- Geller, J., C. Meyer, M. Parker, and H. Hawk. 2013. Redesign of PCR primers for mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I for marine invertebrates and application in all-taxa biotic surveys. Molecular Ecology Resources 13: 851–861.
- Gibson, J., S. Shokralla, T. M. Porter, I. King, S. van Konynenburg, D. H. Janzen, W. Hallwachs, and M. Hajibabaei. 2014. Simultaneous assessment of the macrobiome and microbiome in a bulk sample of tropical arthropods through DNA metasystematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111: 8007–8012.
- Hamilton, A. J., Y. Basset, K. K. Benke, P. S. Grimbacher, S. E. Miller, V. Novotný, G. A. Samuelson, N. E. Stork, G. D. Weiblen, and J. D. L. Yen. 2010. Quantifying uncertainty in estimation of tropical arthropod species richness. American Naturalist 176: 90–95.
- Hebert, P. D. N., A. Cywinska, S. L. Ball, and J. R. DeWaard. 2003. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270: 313–321.
- Huson, D. H., S. Mitra, H. J. Ruscheweyh, N. Weber, and S. C. Schuster. 2011. Integrative analysis of environmental sequences using MEGAN4. Genome Research 21: 1552–1560.
- Ji, Y., et al. 2013. Reliable, verifiable and efficient monitoring of biodiversity via metabarcoding. Ecology Letters 16: 1245–1257.
- Johns, P. M. 2010. Phylum Arthropoda: Subphylum Myriapoda: centipedes, millipedes, pauropods, symphylans. Pages 90–97 in D. P. Gordon, editor. New Zealand Inventory of Biodiversity Volume 2: Kingdom Animalia: Chaetognatha, Ecdysozoa, Ichnofossils. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, New Zealand.
- Katoh, K., and D. M. Standley. 2013. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30: 772–780.
- Kearse, M., et al. 2012. Geneious Basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28: 1647–1649.
- Kvist, S. 2013. Barcoding in the dark?: A critical view of the sufficiency of zoological DNA barcoding databases and a plea for broader integration of taxonomic knowledge. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 69: 39–45.
- Kwong, S., A. Srivathsan, and R. Meier. 2012. An update on DNA barcoding: Low species coverage and numerous unidentified sequences. Cladistics 28: 639–644.
- Leray, M., and N. Knowlton. 2015. DNA barcoding and metabarcoding of standardized samples reveal patterns of marine benthic diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112: 2076–2081.
- Letunic, I., and P. Bork. 2011. Interactive Tree of Life v2: Online annotation and display of phylogenetic trees made easy. Nucleic Acids Research 39(SUPPL. 2): 1–4.
- Levy-Booth, D. J., R. G. Campbell, R. H. Gulden, M. M. Hart, J. R. Powell, J. N. Klironomos, K. P. Pauls, C. J. Swanton, J. T. Trevors, and K. E. Dunfield. 2007. Cycling of extracellular DNA in the soil environment. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39: 2977–2991.
- Macfarlane, R. P., et al. 2010. Phylum Arthropoda: Subphylum Hexapoda: Protura, springtails, Diplura, insects. Pages 233–467 in D. P. Gordon, editor. New Zealand Inventory of Biodiversity Volume 2: Kingdom Animalia: Chaetognatha, Ecdysozoa, Ichnofossils. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, New Zealand.
- McMurdie, P. J., and S. Holmes. 2013. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8: e61217.
- Nadler, S. A., B. J. Adams, E. T. Lyons, R. L. DeLong, and S. R. Melin. 2000. Molecular and morphometric evidence for separate species of Uncinaria (Nematoda: Ancylostomatidae) in California sea lions and northern fur seals: hypothesis testing supplants verification. Journal of Parasitology 86: 1099–1106.
- Nichols, J. D., and M. J. Conroy. 1996. Estimation of species richness. Pages 226–234 in D. E. Wilson, R. F. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. Foster, editors. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., USA.
- Nichols, J. D., T. Boulinier, J. E. Hines, K. H. Pollock, and J. R. Sauer. 1998. Inference methods for spatial variation in species richness and community composition when not all species are detected. Conservation Biology 12: 1390–1398.
- Oksanen, J., et al. 2017. vegan: community ecology package. http://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan
- Peres-Neto, P. R., and D. A. Jackson. 2001. How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia 129: 169–178.
- Pietramellara, G., J. Ascher, F. Borgogni, M. T. Ceccherini, G. Guerri, and P. Nannipieri. 2008. Extracellular DNA in soil and sediment: fate and ecological relevance. Biology and Fertility of Soils 45: 219–235.
- Quince, C., A. Lanzén, T. P. Curtis, R. J. Davenport, N. Hall, I. M. Head, L. F. Read, and W. T. Sloan. 2009. Accurate determination of microbial diversity from 454 pyrosequencing data. Nature Methods 6: 639–641.
- R Core Team. 2016. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/
- R Studio team. 2015. RStudio: Integrated development environment for R. RStudio, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. http://www.rstudio.org
- Ratnasingham, S., and P. D. N. Hebert. 2007. BOLD: The barcode of life data system. Molecular Ecology Notes 7: 355–364.
- Ratnasingham, S., and P. D. N. Hebert. 2013. A DNA-based registry for all animal species: the barcode index number (BIN) system. PLoS ONE 8: e66213.
- Rexstad, E., and K. P. Burnham. 1991. User's guide for interactive program CAPTURE. Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
10.2307/3809503 Google Scholar
- Scheffers, B. R., L. N. Joppa, S. L. Pimm, and W. F. Laurance. 2012. What we know and don't know about Earth's missing biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27: 501–510.
- Schmidt, P. A., M. Bálint, B. Greshake, C. Bandow, J. Römbke, and I. Schmitt. 2013. Illumina metabarcoding of a soil fungal community. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 65: 128–132.
- Seldon, D. S., and R. A. B. Leschen. 2011. Revision of the Mecodema curvidens species group (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Broscini). Zootaxa 2829: 1–45.
10.11646/zootaxa.2829.1.1 Google Scholar
- Sirvid, P. J., Z.-Q. Zhang, M. S. Harvey, B. E. Rhode, D. R. Cook, I. Bartsch, and D. A. Staples. 2010. Phylum Arthropoda: Subphylum Chelicerata: horseshoe crabs, sea spiders, arachnids. Pages 50–89 in D. P. Gordon, editor. New Zealand Inventory of Biodiversity Volume 2: Kingdom Animalia: Chaetognatha, Ecdysozoa, Ichnofossils. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, New Zealand.
- Smith, M. A., B. L. Fisher, and P. D. N. Hebert. 2005. DNA barcoding for effective biodiversity assessment of a hyperdiverse arthropod group: the ants of Madagascar. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 1825–1834.
- Stamatakis, A. 2014. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30: 1312–1313.
- Taberlet, P., E. Coissac, F. Pompanon, C. Brochmann, and E. Willerslev. 2012a. Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology 21: 2045–2050.
- Taberlet, P., et al. 2012b. Soil sampling and isolation of extracellular DNA from large amount of starting material suitable for metabarcoding studies. Molecular Ecology 21: 1816–1820.
- Velasco-Castrillón, A., T. J. Page, J. A. E. Gibson, and M. I. Stevens. 2014. Surprisingly high levels of biodiversity and endemism amongst Antarctic rotifers uncovered with mitochondrial DNA. Biodiversity 15: 130–142.
10.1080/14888386.2014.930717 Google Scholar
- Watt, J. C. 1975. The terrestrial insects. Pages 507–535 in G. Kuschel, editor. Biogeography and ecology in New Zealand. Dr. W. Junk B.V. Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands.
10.1007/978-94-010-1941-5_13 Google Scholar
- Watts, C., and D. Thornburrow. 2011. Habitat use, behavior and movement patterns of a threatened New Zealand giant weta, Deinacrida heteracantha (Anostostomatidae: Orthoptera). Journal of Orthoptera Research 20: 127–135.
10.1665/034.020.0112 Google Scholar
- White, G. C., K. P. Burnham, D. L. Otis, and D. R. Anderson. 1978. User's manual for program CAPTURE. Utah State University Press, Logan, Utah, USA.
- Wickham, H. 2009. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New York, New York, New York, USA.
- Yang, C., X. Wang, J. A. Miller, M. de Blécourt, Y. Ji, C. Yang, R. D. Harrison, and D. W. Yu. 2014. Using metabarcoding to ask if easily collected soil and leaf-litter samples can be used as a general biodiversity indicator. Ecological Indicators 46: 379–389.
- Yu, D. W., Y. Ji, B. C. Emerson, X. Wang, C. Ye, C. Yang, and Z. Ding. 2012. Biodiversity soup: metabarcoding of arthropods for rapid biodiversity assessment and biomonitoring. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3: 613–623.