Schwesig Katharina, Zizka Vera, Scherber Christoph, Hölzel Norbert
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research Group, Institute of Landscape Ecology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Leibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB), Museum Koenig, Bonn, Germany.
Mol Ecol Resour. 2025 Apr;25(3):e14060. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.14060. Epub 2024 Dec 26.
Biodiversity monitoring increasingly relies on molecular methods such as eDNA metabarcoding. However, sound applications have so far been only established for a limited number of taxonomic groups. More information on the strengths and weaknesses of eDNA methods, especially for poorly covered groups, is essential for practical applications to achieve the highest possible reliability. We compared amphibian and Odonata data from eDNA metabarcoding and traditional transect walks on N = 56 plots in 38 water bodies distributed over six extraction sites for building materials in Northwest Germany. The traditional amphibian assessment included visual encounters, dip netting and acoustic detection, while Odonata were assessed through exuviae. In total, both methods detected 8 out of 11 amphibian species, while the remaining three species were detected by eDNA only. We did not find differences in amphibian species numbers per plot, but mean detection probabilities were higher with metabarcoding. In contrast, both methods detected 10 out of 29 Odonata species, while the remaining 19 species were detected by exuviae only. Species numbers per plot were higher for exuviae and only 30% of species were detected with metabarcoding. The species identified by eDNA were those with high abundance, and their detection probabilities were similar to transect walks. The results for amphibians show equal suitability and high complementarity of the compared methods. Metabarcoding detected species more efficiently and therefore offers a suitable protocol for biodiversity monitoring. For Odonata, eDNA metabarcoding showed considerable gaps, implying the need for protocol evaluation and improvement in assessment of ecological communities based on eDNA.
生物多样性监测越来越依赖于诸如环境DNA（eDNA）宏条形码等分子方法。然而，到目前为止，仅针对有限数量的分类群建立了可靠的应用。获取更多关于eDNA方法优缺点的信息，尤其是对于研究较少的类群，对于实际应用以实现尽可能高的可靠性至关重要。我们比较了在德国西北部六个建筑材料开采地点的38个水体中的56个样地，通过eDNA宏条形码和传统样带调查所获得的两栖动物和蜻蜓目数据。传统的两栖动物评估包括目视观察、抄网捕捞和声呐探测，而蜻蜓目则通过蜕皮进行评估。总体而言，两种方法共检测到11种两栖动物中的8种，其余3种仅通过eDNA检测到。我们没有发现每个样地中两栖动物物种数量的差异，但宏条形码的平均检测概率更高。相比之下，两种方法共检测到29种蜻蜓目中的10种，其余19种仅通过蜕皮检测到。通过蜕皮检测到的每个样地的物种数量更多，仅30%的物种通过宏条形码检测到。通过eDNA鉴定出的物种是那些数量较多的物种，它们的检测概率与样带调查相似。两栖动物的结果表明，所比较的方法具有同等适用性和高度互补性。宏条形码能更有效地检测物种，因此为生物多样性监测提供了一个合适的方案。对于蜻蜓目，eDNA宏条形码显示出相当大的差距，这意味着需要对基于eDNA的生态群落评估方案进行评估和改进。
