Detection of Vertebrate Diversity Using Fly‐ and Leech‐Derived <scp>iDNA</scp>

ABSTRACT Developing cost‐effective monitoring tools that cover a broad range of taxonomic groups is urgently needed to implement effective conservation strategies. One promising approach involves collecting genetic samples from hematophagous, sarcophagous, or coprophagous invertebrates, followed by amplification and sequencing of residual vertebrate DNA to reveal vertebrate diversity. In invertebrate‐derived DNA (iDNA) monitoring, species‐specific life histories, physiological traits, and behavioral characteristics introduce distinct biases, depending on the invertebrate taxon used. In this study, we assessed terrestrial vertebrate diversity by simultaneously employing iDNA derived from leeches and flies, together with camera trapping, in a species‐poor temperate forest ecosystem in Yakushima, Japan. Our aim was to evaluate the detection biases of each method and to identify optimal combinations of monitoring tools. We detected a greater number of vertebrate species using fly‐derived iDNA (15 species) than using leech‐derived iDNA (5 species). Fly‐derived iDNA detected mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, whereas leech‐derived iDNA detected only mammals and amphibians. This difference was partly due to the greater ease of collecting flies compared with leeches, which resulted in different sample sizes. However, even when accounting for sample size, fly‐derived iDNA captured a broader range of species. Camera trapping detected a comparable number of mammal species to fly‐derived iDNA but provided lower taxonomic resolution. Notably, we detected all non‐volant terrestrial mammal species known to inhabit in this ecosystem of low species diversity by combining fly‐derived iDNA with camera trapping. However, these methods were less effective in detecting avian and reptilian diversity.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecological Research
Published
2026-01-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1703.70044
Primary Topic
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Detection of Vertebrate Diversity Using Fly‐ and Leech‐Derived iDNA

Yosuke Kurihara, Masamichi Hattori, Yuma Higo, Hiroki Okamura et al.
Ecological Research
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
article

Detection of Vertebrate Diversity Using Fly‐ and Leech‐Derived iDNA

Yosuke Kurihara, Masamichi Hattori, Yuma Higo, Hiroki Okamura, Shun Hongo, Sakura Jin, Hiroki Ishikawa, Goro Hanya, Hiroki Yamamoto, Y. Otani, Tomomi Takakuwa, Takeaki Honda, Yuki Kondo, Shogo Tanji, Izumi Shiroisihi, Aji Otake, Masahiro Sugimoto
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Developing cost‐effective monitoring tools that cover a broad range of taxonomic groups is urgently needed to implement effective conservation strategies. One promising approach involves collecting genetic samples from hematophagous, sarcophagous, or coprophagous invertebrates, followed by amplification and sequencing of residual vertebrate DNA to reveal vertebrate diversity. In invertebrate‐derived DNA (iDNA) monitoring, species‐specific life histories, physiological traits, and behavioral characteristics introduce distinct biases, depending on the invertebrate taxon used. In this study, we assessed terrestrial vertebrate diversity by simultaneously employing iDNA derived from leeches and flies, together with camera trapping, in a species‐poor temperate forest ecosystem in Yakushima, Japan. Our aim was to evaluate the detection biases of each method and to identify optimal combinations of monitoring tools. We detected a greater number of vertebrate species using fly‐derived iDNA (15 species) than using leech‐derived iDNA (5 species). Fly‐derived iDNA detected mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, whereas leech‐derived iDNA detected only mammals and amphibians. This difference was partly due to the greater ease of collecting flies compared with leeches, which resulted in different sample sizes. However, even when accounting for sample size, fly‐derived iDNA captured a broader range of species. Camera trapping detected a comparable number of mammal species to fly‐derived iDNA but provided lower taxonomic resolution. Notably, we detected all non‐volant terrestrial mammal species known to inhabit in this ecosystem of low species diversity by combining fly‐derived iDNA with camera trapping. However, these methods were less effective in detecting avian and reptilian diversity.

Ecological ResearchVol. 41(2)
Osaka Gakuin University (JP), Shizuoka University (JP), Osaka Prefecture University (JP), Toyo University (JP), Iwate University (JP), Kyoto University (JP), Osaka University of Human Sciences (JP), Indiana University Bloomington (US), HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research (HU), Japan Wildlife Research Center (JP), Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (JP), Gifu University (JP), Osaka Metropolitan University (JP), Nagoya University (JP), Kobe University (JP), Tokyo Metropolitan University (JP), Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology (JP)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.