No abstract

AimRange expansions facilitated by humans or in response to local biotic or abiotic stressors provide the opportunity for species to occupy novel environments. Classifying the status of newly expanded populations can be difficult, particularly when the timing and nature of the range expansion are unclear. Should native species in new habitats be considered invasive pests or actively conserved? Here, we present an analytical framework applied to an Australian marsupial, the sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps), a species that preys upon on an endangered parrot in Tasmania, and whose provenance was uncertain.LocationTasmania, Australia.MethodsWe conducted an extensive search of historical records for sugar glider occurrences in Tasmania. Source material included museum collection data, early European expedition logs, community observation records, and peer‐reviewed and grey literature. To determine the provenance of the Tasmanian population, we sequenced two mitochondrial genes and one nuclear gene in Tasmanian animals (n = 27) and in individuals across the species' native range. We then estimated divergence times between Tasmania and southern Australian populations using phylogenetic and Bayesian analyses.ResultsWe found no historical evidence of sugar gliders occurring in Tasmania prior to 1835. All Tasmanian individuals (n = 27) were genetically identical at the three genes surveyed here with those individuals being 0.125% divergent from individuals from a population in Victoria. Bayesian analysis of divergence between Tasmanian individuals and southern Australian individuals suggested a recent introduction of sugar gliders into Tasmania from southern Australia.Main conclusionsMolecular and historical data demonstrate that Tasmanian sugar gliders are a recent, post‐European, anthropogenic introduction from mainland Victoria. This result has implications for the management of the species in relation to their impact on an endangered parrot. The analytical framework outlined here can assist environmental managers with the complex task of assessing the status of recently expanded or introduced native species.

Macroinvertebrates are commonly sampled for bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems. However, current bioassessment protocols involve laborious sorting of the animals from the debris (sample matrix) and morphological identification, where species level identifications are often difficult. DNA metabarcoding has the potential to improve bioassessment by reducing the time taken to process samples and improve the accuracy and speed of macroinvertebrate species identification. In this study, we evaluated DNA metabarcoding of macroinvertebrate samples, which include macroinvertebrates and the debris collected in the sample nets, to test if bulk, unsorted samples can be used to assess macroinvertebrate diversity. First, we tested if the sample matrix prevented the detection of six target macroinvertebrate taxa when DNA metabarcoding. Second, we tested if sample storage influenced the detection of the same six target macroinvertebrates. We also explored different levels of replication at the sample, sub‐sample, and polymerase chain reaction levels and compared the overall macroinvertebrate families detected using DNA metabarcoding to those identified morphologically. We found that the presence of the sample matrix did not interfere with or inhibit the detection of the six target macroinvertebrate taxa. Furthermore, we found that the various sample storage methods did not affect target macroinvertebrate detection. The reliability of detection of the target macroinvertebrates improved as hierarchical levels of replication were combined. We found strong overlap between the detection of overall macroinvertebrate family diversity when comparing DNA metabarcoding to morphological identification. Extracting DNA from the bulk macroinvertebrate samples that included the sample matrix and using this for DNA metabarcoding could improve bioassessment by removing the need for laborious sorting of samples. Furthermore, DNA metabarcoding detection of the six target taxa was not dependent on sample storage of up to 1 year in 95% ethanol, at room temperature or after heating. DNA metabarcoding had the advantage of identifying macroinvertebrate species, but good DNA barcode libraries are needed for widespread species identifications. Further investigation should focus on including multiple samples with different macroinvertebrate composition and densities to refine and standardise bulk sample processing protocols, and on building comprehensive DNA barcode libraries for aquatic macroinvertebrates.

No abstract