Search

DNA-based gut content analysis has become an important tool for unravelling feeding interactions in invertebrate communities under natural conditions. It usually implies killing of the consumer and extracting the DNA from its food, using either the whole animal or its dissected gut. This post-mortem approach, however, is not suitable for investigating the diet of rare or protected species and also prohibits tracking individual dietary preferences as each consumer can provide trophic information only once. Moreover, removing large numbers of consumers from a habitat for analysis might critically change population densities and affect species interactions. Here, we present DNA-based analysis of invertebrate regurgitates, a novel approach to overcome these limitations. Conducting feeding experiments where adult Poecilus cupreus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) were fed with larvae of Amphimallon solstitiale (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), we show that detection success in regurgitates compared to samples prepared from whole beetles was similar or significantly enhanced for small/medium and large prey DNA fragments, respectively. Prey DNA detection success remained high in regurgitates stored in ethanol for 21 months at room temperature prior to DNA extraction. We conclude that in those invertebrates where regurgitates can be obtained, examination of food DNA in regurgitates offers many advantages over conventional post-mortem gut content analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Next‐generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly used for diet analyses; however, it may not always describe diet samples well. A reason for this is that diet samples contain mixtures of food DNA in different amounts as well as consumer DNA which can reduce the food DNA characterized. Because of this, detections will depend on the relative amount and identity of each type of DNA. For such samples, diagnostic PCR will most likely give more reliable results, as detection probability is only marginally dependent on other copresent DNA. We investigated the reliability of each method to test (a) whether predatory beetle regurgitates, supposed to be low in consumer DNA, allow to retrieve prey sequences using general barcoding primers that co‐amplify the consumer DNA, and (b) to assess the sequencing depth or replication needed for NGS and diagnostic PCR to give stable results. When consumer DNA is co‐amplified, NGS is better suited to discover the range of possible prey, than for comparing co‐occurrences of diet species between samples, as retested samples were repeatedly different in prey detections with this approach. This shows that samples were incompletely described, as prey detected by diagnostic PCR frequently were missed by NGS. As the sequencing depth needed to reliably describe the diet in such samples becomes very high, the cost‐efficiency and reliability of diagnostic PCR make diagnostic PCR better suited for testing large sample‐sets. Especially if the targeted prey taxa are thought to be of ecological importance, as diagnostic PCR gave more nested and consistent results in repeated testing of the same sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The rapidly growing field of molecular diet analysis is becoming increasingly popular among ecologists, especially when investigating methodologically challenging groups, such as invertebrate generalist predators. Prey DNA detection success is known to be affected by multiple factors; however, the type of dietary sample has rarely been considered. Here, we address this knowledge gap by comparing prey DNA detection success from three types of dietary samples. In a controlled feeding experiment, using the carabid beetle Pterostichus melanarius as a model predator, we collected regurgitates, faeces and whole consumers (including their gut contents) at different time points postfeeding. All dietary samples were analysed using multiplex PCR, targeting three different length DNA fragments (128, 332 and 612 bp). Our results show that both the type of dietary sample and the size of the DNA fragment contribute to a significant part of the variation found in the detectability of prey DNA. Specifically, we observed that in both regurgitates and whole consumers, prey DNA was detectable significantly longer for all fragment sizes than for faeces. Based on these observations, we conclude that prey DNA detected from regurgitates and whole consumers DNA extracts are comparable, whereas prey DNA detected from faeces, though still sufficiently reliable for ecological studies, will not be directly comparable to the former. Therefore, regurgitates and faeces constitute a useful, nonlethal source for dietary information that could be applied to field studies in situations when invertebrate predators should not be killed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The analysis of prey DNA in faeces is a non-invasive approach to examine the diet of birds. However, it is poorly known how gut transition time, environmental factors and laboratory treatments such as storage conditions or DNA extraction procedures affect the detection success of prey DNA. Here, we examined several of these factors using faeces from carrion crows fed with insect larvae. Faeces produced between 30 min and 4 h post-feeding tested positive for insect DNA, representing the gut transition time. Prey detection was not only possible in fresh but also in 5-day-old faeces. The type of surface the faeces were placed on for these 5 days, however, affected prey DNA detection success: samples placed on soil provided the lowest rate of positives compared to faeces left on leaves, on branches and within plastic tubes. Exposing faeces to sunlight and rain significantly lowered prey DNA detection rates (17% and 68% positives in exposed and protected samples, respectively). Storing faeces in ethanol or in the freezer did not affect molecular prey detection. Extracting DNA directly from larger pieces of faecal pellets resulted in significantly higher prey detection rates than when using small amounts of homogenized faeces. A cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide-based DNA extraction protocol yielded significantly higher DNA detection rates (60%) than three commercial kits, however, for small amounts of homogenized faeces only. Our results suggest that collecting faeces from smooth, clean and non-absorbing surfaces, protected from sunlight and rain, improves DNA detection success in avian faeces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]