Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorClare, ELen_US
dc.contributor.authorFazekas, AJen_US
dc.contributor.authorIvanova, NVen_US
dc.contributor.authorFloyd, RMen_US
dc.contributor.authorHebert, PDNen_US
dc.contributor.authorAdams, AMen_US
dc.contributor.authorNagel, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorGirton, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorNewmaster, SGen_US
dc.contributor.authorFenton, MBen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-28T13:15:53Z
dc.date.available2018-10-25en_US
dc.date.issued2018-11-14en_US
dc.date.submitted2018-11-22T07:05:41.813Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/53377
dc.description.abstractAs molecular tools for assessing trophic interactions become common, research is increasingly focused on the construction of interaction networks. Here, we demonstrate three key methods for incorporating DNA data into network ecology and discuss analytical considerations using a model consisting of plants, insects, bats and their parasites from the Costa Rica dry forest. The simplest method involves the use of Sanger sequencing to acquire long sequences to validate or refine field identifications, for example of bats and their parasites, where one specimen yields one sequence and one identification. This method can be fully quantified and resolved and these data resemble traditional ecological networks. For more complex taxonomic identifications, we target multiple DNA loci, for example from a seed or fruit pulp sample in faeces. These networks are also well resolved but gene targets vary in resolution and quantification is difficult. Finally, for mixed templates such as faecal contents of insectivorous bats, we use DNA metabarcoding targeting two sequence lengths (157 and 407 bp) of one gene region and a MOTU, BLAST and BIN association approach to resolve nodes. This network type is complex to generate and analyse, and we discuss the implications of this type of resolution on network analysis. Using these data, we construct the first molecular-based network of networks containing 3,304 interactions between 762 nodes of eight trophic functions and involving parasitic, mutualistic and predatory interactions. We provide a comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of these data types in network ecology.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofMol Ecolen_US
dc.rightsThis is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Mol Ecol following peer review. The version of record is available https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mec.14941
dc.subjectDNA barcodingen_US
dc.subjectbatsen_US
dc.subjectfood websen_US
dc.subjecthigh-throughput sequencingen_US
dc.subjectinteraction networksen_US
dc.subjectmetabarcodingen_US
dc.titleApproaches to integrating genetic data into ecological networks.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holderCopyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/mec.14941en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30427082en_US
pubs.notesNo embargoen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-10-25en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record