Environmental DNA from archived leaves reveals widespread temporal turnover and biotic homogenization in forest arthropod communities

  1. Henrik Krehenwinkel  Is a corresponding author
  2. Sven Weber
  3. Rieke Broekmann
  4. Anja Melcher
  5. Julian Hans
  6. Rüdiger Wolf
  7. Axel Hochkirch
  8. Susan Rachel Kennedy
  9. Jan Koschorrek
  10. Sven Künzel
  11. Christoph Müller
  12. Rebecca Reztlaff
  13. Diana Teubner
  14. Sonja Schanzer
  15. Roland Klein
  16. Martin Paulus
  17. Thomas Udelhoven
  18. Michael Veith
  1. University of Trier, Germany
  2. German Federal Environment Agency, Germany
  3. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Germany
  4. Ludwig Maximilians University, Germany

Abstract

A major limitation of current reports on insect declines is the lack of standardized, long-term, and taxonomically broad time series. Here, we demonstrate the utility of environmental DNA from archived leaf material to characterize plant-associated arthropod communities. We base our work on several multi-decadal leaf time series from tree canopies in four land use types, which were sampled as part of a long-term environmental monitoring program across Germany. Using these highly standardized and well-preserved samples, we analyze temporal changes in communities of several thousand arthropod species belonging to 23 orders using metabarcoding and quantitative PCR. Our data do not support widespread declines of α-diversity or genetic variation within sites. Instead, we find a gradual community turnover, which results in temporal and spatial biotic homogenization, across all land use types and all arthropod orders. Our results suggest that insect decline is more complex than mere α-diversity loss, but can be driven by β-diversity decay across space and time.

Data availability

All raw reads are available in the Dryad Digital Repository (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.x0k6djhmp).The OTU table with metadata and qPCR resullts has been uploaded as Supplementary Material

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Henrik Krehenwinkel

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    For correspondence
    krehenwinkel@uni-trier.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5069-8601
  2. Sven Weber

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Rieke Broekmann

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Anja Melcher

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Julian Hans

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Rüdiger Wolf

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8144-5954
  7. Axel Hochkirch

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Susan Rachel Kennedy

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jan Koschorrek

    German Federal Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Sven Künzel

    Department Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Plön, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Christoph Müller

    Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Rebecca Reztlaff

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Diana Teubner

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Sonja Schanzer

    Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Roland Klein

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8735-0393
  16. Martin Paulus

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Thomas Udelhoven

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Michael Veith

    University of Trier, Trier, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

No external funding was received for this work.

Copyright

© 2022, Krehenwinkel et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,394
    views
  • 367
    downloads
  • 16
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Henrik Krehenwinkel
  2. Sven Weber
  3. Rieke Broekmann
  4. Anja Melcher
  5. Julian Hans
  6. Rüdiger Wolf
  7. Axel Hochkirch
  8. Susan Rachel Kennedy
  9. Jan Koschorrek
  10. Sven Künzel
  11. Christoph Müller
  12. Rebecca Reztlaff
  13. Diana Teubner
  14. Sonja Schanzer
  15. Roland Klein
  16. Martin Paulus
  17. Thomas Udelhoven
  18. Michael Veith
(2022)
Environmental DNA from archived leaves reveals widespread temporal turnover and biotic homogenization in forest arthropod communities
eLife 11:e78521.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78521

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78521

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kathleen T Quach, Gillian A Hughes, Sreekanth H Chalasani
    Research Article

    Prey must balance predator avoidance with feeding, a central dilemma in prey refuge theory. Additionally, prey must assess predatory imminence—how close threats are in space and time. Predatory imminence theory classifies defensive behaviors into three defense modes: pre-encounter, post-encounter, and circa-strike, corresponding to increasing levels of threat—–suspecting, detecting, and contacting a predator. Although predatory risk often varies in spatial distribution and imminence, how these factors intersect to influence defensive behaviors is poorly understood. Integrating these factors into a naturalistic environment enables comprehensive analysis of multiple defense modes in consistent conditions. Here, we combine prey refuge and predatory imminence theories to develop a model system of nematode defensive behaviors, with Caenorhabditis elegans as prey and Pristionchus pacificus as predator. In a foraging environment comprised of a food-rich, high-risk patch and a food-poor, low-risk refuge, C. elegans innately exhibits circa-strike behaviors. With experience, it learns post- and pre-encounter behaviors that proactively anticipate threats. These defense modes intensify with predator lethality, with only life-threatening predators capable of eliciting all three modes. SEB-3 receptors and NLP-49 peptides, key stress regulators, vary in their impact and interdependence across defense modes. Overall, our model system reveals fine-grained insights into how stress-related signaling regulates defensive behaviors.

    1. Ecology
    Laura Fargeot, Camille Poesy ... Blanchet Simon
    Research Article

    Understanding the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning stands as a cornerstone in ecological research. Extensive evidence now underscores the profound impact of species loss on the stability and dynamics of ecosystem functions. However, it remains unclear whether the loss of genetic diversity within key species yields similar consequences. Here, we delve into the intricate relationship between species diversity, genetic diversity, and ecosystem functions across three trophic levels – primary producers, primary consumers, and secondary consumers – in natural aquatic ecosystems. Our investigation involves estimating species diversity and genome-wide diversity – gauged within three pivotal species – within each trophic level, evaluating seven key ecosystem functions, and analyzing the magnitude of the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functions (BEFs). We found that, overall, the absolute effect size of genetic diversity on ecosystem functions mirrors that of species diversity in natural ecosystems. We nonetheless unveil a striking dichotomy: while genetic diversity was positively correlated with various ecosystem functions, species diversity displays a negative correlation with these functions. These intriguing antagonist effects of species and genetic diversity persist across the three trophic levels (underscoring its systemic nature), but were apparent only when BEFs were assessed within trophic levels rather than across them. This study reveals the complexity of predicting the consequences of genetic and species diversity loss under natural conditions, and emphasizes the need for further mechanistic models integrating these two facets of biodiversity.