2018
DOI: 10.1101/303461
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Counting with DNA in metabarcoding studies: how should we convert sequence reads to dietary data?

Abstract: (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

7
159
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(167 citation statements)
references
References 74 publications
7
159
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Due to the restrictions in the quantification of consumed prey volume, many trophic studies only use presence/absence data (e.g., Deagle et al., ; Harms‐Tuohy et al., ; Pinol, Mir, Gomez‐Polo, & Agusti, ). This might, however, result in an overestimation of small taxa that are abundant in the sediment, but with low trophic relevance, as they could, in the case of C. crangon , be passively acquired when shrimp ingest sediment to crush food in their stomach (Ansell et al., ; Deagle et al., ; Tiews, ). Multiple stomachs were pooled prior to analysis and data were subjected to rigorous filtering to allow for a semiquantitative estimation of proportions of prey DNA (Deagle et al., ; Lejzerowicz et al., ; Pompanon et al., ; Thomas, Deagle, Eveson, Harsch, & Trites, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the restrictions in the quantification of consumed prey volume, many trophic studies only use presence/absence data (e.g., Deagle et al., ; Harms‐Tuohy et al., ; Pinol, Mir, Gomez‐Polo, & Agusti, ). This might, however, result in an overestimation of small taxa that are abundant in the sediment, but with low trophic relevance, as they could, in the case of C. crangon , be passively acquired when shrimp ingest sediment to crush food in their stomach (Ansell et al., ; Deagle et al., ; Tiews, ). Multiple stomachs were pooled prior to analysis and data were subjected to rigorous filtering to allow for a semiquantitative estimation of proportions of prey DNA (Deagle et al., ; Lejzerowicz et al., ; Pompanon et al., ; Thomas, Deagle, Eveson, Harsch, & Trites, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We chose to use relative read count data as a proxy for arthropod abundance, as supported by Piñol, Senar, and Symondson () and Deagle et al. ().…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is also the possibility of these methods over‐estimating prey taxa through secondary consumption, which, along with cannibalism, is nearly impossible to detect (Nielsen et al ., ), yet can be a significant potential source of error (Sheppard et al ., ). Furthermore, dietary metabarcoding data often contain biases such that there exists high uncertainty around quantitative estimates and in many instances biomass of prey cannot be inferred (Deagle et al ., ; Lamb et al ., ), whereas the relative fullness and frequency of occurrence methods are favoured and recommended for the standardization of feeding studies for their ability to discern relative prey diversity and abundance (Amundsen & Sánchez‐Hernández, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%