Comparison of Environmental <scp>DNA</scp> and Bulk <scp>DNA</scp> Metabarcoding for Assessing Terrestrial Arthropod Diversity Across Three Habitat Types on Guam
DNA-based methods offer a rapid and cost-effective way for detecting species occurrence and monitoring biodiversity; among them, bulk DNA metabarcoding is well-established, and recently developed environmental DNA (eDNA)-based methods offer a non-lethal alternative. With a goal to develop suitable methods for assessing insect biodiversity for understudied island ecosystems where DNA reference libraries are incomplete, we compared established bulk DNA metabarcoding methods with eDNA across three replicated terrestrial ecosystem types (degraded forest, limestone forest, and grassland) on the island of Guam. Using two mitochondrial COI primer pairs, we performed bulk DNA metabarcoding of standard entomological collection methods (Malaise traps, pan traps, and vegetation beating), and compared the assessment of biodiversity with that from different eDNA sources (flowers, leaves, tree trunks, and spider webs). In our samples, eDNA and bulk DNA metabarcoding both detected a large proportion of overall taxa (OTUs, 86.6% and 60.3%, respectively). Although bulk DNA metabarcoding detected significantly more taxa, eDNA proved to be a reasonable non-lethal alternative. As expected, because of limitations in existing reference databases for understudied systems, species-level identification was achieved for only a few OTUs. Overall, the sampling approach was the dominant driver of arthropod diversity, explaining ~17% of the observed variation, while habitat type accounted for ~4%. Thus, each sampling approach captured some unique diversity and contributed to the complementary effect of maximizing detection. For rapid biodiversity surveys of terrestrial arthropods, we recommend integrating metabarcoding approaches, and in sensitive ecosystems where specimen capture is undesirable, eDNA offers a powerful non-lethal alternative to monitor diversity and community change.
Authors
- Pritam Banerjee (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1818-5096)
- Evan P. Economo (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7402-0432)
- Natalie R. Graham (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7704-1132)
- Henrik Krehenwinkel (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5069-8601)
- Jeremy C. Andersen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9273-6490)
- George Roderick (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7557-2415)
- Susan Kennedy (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1616-3985)
- Haldre S. Rogers (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4763-5006)
- Rosemary G. Gillespie (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0086-7424)
- Sven Weber (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6876-132X)
- Kenneth P. Puliafico
- Jerilyn Calaor (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9104-9582)
- Samantha Al‐Bayer (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1141-6589)
Institutions
- Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (JP)
- Iowa State University (US)
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- University of Hawaii at Hilo (US)
- Military University (RU)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Virginia Tech (US)
- Universität Trier (DE)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Molecular Ecology Resources
- Published
- 2026-06-26
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.70172
- Primary Topic
- Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00
Funders
- Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program