Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35571761›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2022

DNA metabarcoding quantifies the relative biomass of arthropod taxa in songbird diets: Validation with camera-recorded diets.

Yvonne I Verkuil, Marion Nicolaus, Richard Ubels, Maurine W Dietz, Jelmer M Samplonius, Annabet Galema, Kim Kiekebos, Peter de Knijff, Christiaan Both

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yvonne I VerkuilConservation Ecology Group Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES) University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7080-3026
Marion NicolausConservation Ecology Group Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES) University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1808-1526
Richard UbelsConservation Ecology Group Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES) University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.
Maurine W DietzGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES) University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9022-3790
Jelmer M SamploniusGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES) University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8700-4041
Annabet GalemaConservation Ecology Group Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES) University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.
Kim KiekebosConservation Ecology Group Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES) University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.
Peter de KnijffDepartment of Human Genetics Leiden University Medical Centre Leiden The Netherlands.
Christiaan BothConservation Ecology Group Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES) University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7099-9831

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecological research is often hampered by the inability to quantify animal diets. Diet composition can be tracked through DNA metabarcoding of fecal samples, but whether (complex) diets can be quantitatively determined with metabarcoding is still debated and needs validation using free-living animals. This study validates that DNA metabarcoding of feces can retrieve actual ingested taxa, and most importantly, that read numbers retrieved from sequencing can also be used to quantify the relative biomass of dietary taxa. Validation was done with the hole-nesting insectivorous Pied Flycatcher whose diet was quantified using camera footage. Size-adjusted counts of food items delivered to nestlings were used as a proxy for provided biomass of prey orders and families, and subsequently, nestling feces were assessed through DNA metabarcoding. To explore potential effects of digestion, gizzard and lower intestine samples of freshly collected birds were subjected to DNA metabarcoding. For metabarcoding with Cytochrome Oxidase subunit I (COI), we modified published invertebrate COI primers LCO1490 and HCO1777, which reduced host reads to 0.03%, and amplified Arachnida DNA without significant changing the recovery of other arthropod taxa. DNA metabarcoding retrieved all commonly camera-recorded taxa. Overall, and in each replicate year (

Indexed as

ArthropodaCOI primersDNA barcodingFicedula hypoleucaIllumina sequencinginsectivorous dietPCR‐basedvalidation

Identifiers

PMID35571761
PMCPMC9077022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.