Tetzlaff Sasha J, Katz Aron D, Wolff Patrick J, Kleitch Matthew E
Engineer Research and Development Center Champaign Illinois USA.
Department of Entomology University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana Illinois USA.
Ecol Evol. 2024 Jul 14;14(7):e70022. doi: 10.1002/ece3.70022. eCollection 2024 Jul.
Species detections often vary depending on the survey methods employed. Some species may go undetected when using only one approach in community-level inventory and monitoring programs, which has management and conservation implications. We conducted a comparative study of terrestrial mammal and bird detections in the spring and summer of 2021 by placing camera traps at 30 locations across a large military installation in northern Michigan, USA and testing replicate soil samples from these sites for environmental DNA (eDNA) using an established vertebrate metabarcoding assay. We detected a total of 48 taxa from both survey methods: 26 mammalian taxa (excluding humans, 24 to species and two to genus) and 22 avian taxa (21 to species and one to genus). We detected a relatively even distribution of mammalian taxa on cameras (17) and via eDNA analysis (15), with seven taxa detected from both methods. Most medium-to-large carnivores were detected only on cameras, whereas semi-fossorial small mammals were detected only via eDNA analysis. We detected higher bird diversity with camera traps (18 taxa) compared to eDNA analysis (eight taxa; four taxa were detected with both methods), but cameras alone were most effective at detecting smaller birds that frequently occupy arboreal environments. We also used Bayesian spatial occupancy models for two widely distributed game species (white-tailed deer, , and ruffed grouse, ) that were moderately detected with both survey methods and found species-specific site use (occupancy) estimates were similar between cameras and eDNA analysis. Concordant with similar studies, our findings suggest that a combination of camera trap and eDNA surveys could be most useful for assessing the composition of terrestrial mammal communities. Camera traps may be most efficient for assessing bird diversity but can be complemented with eDNA analysis, particularly for species that spend considerable time on the ground.
物种检测结果通常会因所采用的调查方法而有所不同。在群落水平的清查和监测项目中，仅使用一种方法时，某些物种可能无法被检测到，这会对管理和保护工作产生影响。2021年春夏，我们在美国密歇根州北部一个大型军事军事设施进行了一项关于陆地哺乳动物和鸟类检测的比较研究。我们在美国密歇根州北部一个大型军事设施的30个地点设置了相机陷阱，并使用既定的脊椎动物代谢条形码分析法，对这些地点的土壤样本进行环境DNA（eDNA）检测。我们通过这两种调查方法共检测到48个分类单元：26个哺乳动物分类单元（不包括人类，24个为物种，2个为属）和22个鸟类分类单元（21个为物种，1个为属）。我们发现，通过相机检测到的哺乳动物分类单元（17个）和通过eDNA分析检测到的分类单元（15个）分布相对均匀，两种方法都检测到了7个分类单元。大多数中大型食肉动物仅通过相机被检测到，而半穴居小型哺乳动物仅通过eDNA分析被检测到。与eDNA分析（8个分类单元；两种方法都检测到4个分类单元）相比，我们通过相机陷阱检测到的鸟类多样性更高（18个分类单元），但仅相机在检测经常栖息于树栖环境的较小鸟类方面最为有效。我们还对两种广泛分布且通过两种调查方法都能适度检测到的猎物物种（白尾鹿和披肩榛鸡）使用了贝叶斯空间占用模型，发现相机和eDNA分析之间特定物种的地点使用（占用）估计相似。与类似研究一致，我们的研究结果表明，相机陷阱和eDNA调查相结合可能最有助于评估陆地哺乳动物群落的组成。相机陷阱在评估鸟类多样性方面可能最有效，但可以用eDNA分析作为补充，特别是对于那些在地面上花费大量时间的物种。
