Title |
Monitoring mosquito richness in an understudied area: can environmental DNA metabarcoding be a complementary approach to adult trapping?
|
---|---|
Published in |
Bulletin of Entomological Research, May 2023
|
DOI | 10.1017/s0007485323000147 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Rafael Gutiérrez-López, Bastian Egeter, Christophe Paupy, Nil Rahola, Boris Makanga, Davy Jiolle, Vincent Bourret, Martim Melo, Claire Loiseau |
Abstract |
Mosquito surveillance programmes are essential to assess the risks of local vector-borne disease outbreaks as well as for early detection of mosquito invasion events. Surveys are usually performed with traditional sampling tools (i.e., ovitraps and dipping method for immature stages or light or decoy traps for adults). Over the past decade, numerous studies have highlighted that environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling can enhance invertebrate species detection and provide community composition metrics. However, the usefulness of eDNA for detection of mosquito species has, to date, been largely neglected. Here, we sampled water from potential larval breeding sites along a gradient of anthropogenic perturbations, from the core of an oil palm plantation to the rainforest on São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea, Africa). We showed that (i) species of mosquitoes could be detected via metabarcoding mostly when larvae were visible, (ii) larvae species richness was greater using eDNA than visual identification and (iii) new mosquito species were also detected by the eDNA approach. We provide a critical discussion of the pros and cons of eDNA metabarcoding for monitoring mosquito species diversity and recommendations for future research directions that could facilitate the adoption of eDNA as a tool for assessing insect vector communities. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
South Africa | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 12 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
Scientists | 3 | 21% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 2 | 15% |
Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
Other | 2 | 15% |
Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 23% |
Environmental Science | 1 | 8% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
Computer Science | 1 | 8% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 8% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 6 | 46% |