Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding

Freshwater fauna are particularly sensitive to environmental change and disturbance. Management agencies frequently use fish and amphibian biodiversity as indicators of ecosystem health and a way to prioritize and assess management strategies. Traditional aquatic bioassessment that relies on capture of organisms via nets, traps and electrofishing gear typically has low detection probabilities for rare species and can injure individuals of protected species. Our objective was to determine whether environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling and metabarcoding analysis can be used to accurately measure species diversity in aquatic assemblages with differing structures. We manipulated the density and relative abundance of eight fish and one amphibian species in replicated 206‐L mesocosms. Environmental DNA was filtered from water samples, and six mitochondrial gene fragments were Illumina‐sequenced to measure species diversity in each mesocosm. Metabarcoding detected all nine species in all treatment replicates. Additionally, we found a modest, but positive relationship between species abundance and sequencing read abundance. Our results illustrate the potential for eDNA sampling and metabarcoding approaches to improve quantification of aquatic species diversity in natural environments and point the way towards using eDNA metabarcoding as an index of macrofaunal species abundance.     

Towards robust and repeatable sampling methods in eDNA‐based studies

DNA‐based techniques are increasingly used for measuring the biodiversity (species presence, identity, abundance and community composition) of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. While there are numerous reviews of molecular methods and bioinformatic steps, there has been little consideration of the methods used to collect samples upon which these later steps are based. This represents a critical knowledge gap, as methodologically sound field sampling is the foundation for subsequent analyses. We reviewed field sampling methods used for metabarcoding studies of both terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem biodiversity over a nearly three‐year period (n = 75). We found that 95% (n = 71) of these studies used subjective sampling methods and inappropriate field methods and/or failed to provide critical methodological information. It would be possible for researchers to replicate only 5% of the metabarcoding studies in our sample, a poorer level of reproducibility than for ecological studies in general. Our findings suggest greater attention to field sampling methods, and reporting is necessary in eDNA‐based studies of biodiversity to ensure robust outcomes and future reproducibility. Methods must be fully and accurately reported, and protocols developed that minimize subjectivity. Standardization of sampling protocols would be one way to help to improve reproducibility and have additional benefits in allowing compilation and comparison of data from across studies.     

Quantitative DNA metabarcoding: improved estimates of species proportional biomass using correction factors derived from control material

DNA metabarcoding is a powerful new tool allowing characterization of species assemblages using high‐throughput amplicon sequencing. The utility of DNA metabarcoding for quantifying relative species abundances is currently limited by both biological and technical biases which influence sequence read counts. We tested the idea of sequencing 50/50 mixtures of target species and a control species in order to generate relative correction factors (RCFs) that account for multiple sources of bias and are applicable to field studies. RCFs will be most effective if they are not affected by input mass ratio or co‐occurring species. In a model experiment involving three target fish species and a fixed control, we found RCFs did vary with input ratio but in a consistent fashion, and that 50/50 RCFs applied to DNA sequence counts from various mixtures of the target species still greatly improved relative abundance estimates (e.g. average per species error of 19 ± 8% for uncorrected vs. 3 ± 1% for corrected estimates). To demonstrate the use of correction factors in a field setting, we calculated 50/50 RCFs for 18 harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) prey species (RCFs ranging from 0.68 to 3.68). Applying these corrections to field‐collected seal scats affected species percentages from individual samples (Δ 6.7 ± 6.6%) more than population‐level species estimates (Δ 1.7 ± 1.2%). Our results indicate that the 50/50 RCF approach is an effective tool for evaluating and correcting biases in DNA metabarcoding studies. The decision to apply correction factors will be influenced by the feasibility of creating tissue mixtures for the target species, and the level of accuracy needed to meet research objectives.     

Molecular‐ and pollen‐based vegetation analysis in lake sediments from central Scandinavia

Plant and animal biodiversity can be studied by obtaining DNA directly from the environment. This new approach in combination with the use of generic barcoding primers (metabarcoding) has been suggested as complementary or alternative to traditional biodiversity monitoring in ancient soil sediments. However, the extent to which metabarcoding truly reflects plant composition remains unclear, as does its power to identify species with no pollen or macrofossil evidence. Here, we compared pollen‐based and metabarcoding approaches to explore the Holocene plant composition around two lakes in central Scandinavia. At one site, we also compared barcoding results with those obtained in earlier studies with species‐specific primers. The pollen analyses revealed a larger number of taxa (46), of which the majority (78%) was not identified by metabarcoding. The metabarcoding identified 14 taxa (MTUs), but allowed identification to a lower taxonomical level. The combined analyses identified 52 taxa. The barcoding primers may favour amplification of certain taxa, as they did not detect taxa previously identified with species‐specific primers. Taphonomy and selectiveness of the primers are likely the major factors influencing these results. We conclude that metabarcoding from lake sediments provides a complementary, but not an alternative, tool to pollen analysis for investigating past flora. In the absence of other fossil evidence, metabarcoding gives a local and important signal from the vegetation, but the resulting assemblages show limited capacity to detect all taxa, regardless of their abundance around the lake. We suggest that metabarcoding is followed by pollen analysis and the use of species‐specific primers to provide the most comprehensive signal from the environment.     

Promises and pitfalls of using high‐throughput sequencing for diet analysis

The application of high‐throughput sequencing‐based approaches to DNA extracted from environmental samples such as gut contents and faeces has become a popular tool for studying dietary habits of animals. Due to the high resolution and prey detection capacity they provide, both metabarcoding and shotgun sequencing are increasingly used to address ecological questions grounded in dietary relationships. Despite their great promise in this context, recent research has unveiled how a wealth of biological (related to the study system) and technical (related to the methodology) factors can distort the signal of taxonomic composition and diversity. Here, we review these studies in the light of high‐throughput sequencing‐based assessment of trophic interactions. We address how the study design can account for distortion factors, and how acknowledging limitations and biases inherent to sequencing‐based diet analyses are essential for obtaining reliable results, thus drawing appropriate conclusions. Furthermore, we suggest strategies to minimize the effect of distortion factors, measures to increase reproducibility, replicability and comparability of studies, and options to scale up DNA sequencing‐based diet analyses. In doing so, we aim to aid end‐users in designing reliable diet studies by informing them about the complexity and limitations of DNA sequencing‐based diet analyses, and encourage researchers to create and improve tools that will eventually drive this field to its maturity.     

Ichthyoplankton metabarcoding: An efficient tool for early detection of invasive species establishment

Detection of invasive species is critical for management but is often limited by challenges associated with capture, processing and identification of early life stages. DNA metabarcoding facilitates large-scale monitoring projects to detect establishment early. Here, we test the use of DNA metabarcoding to monitor invasive species by sequencing over 5000 fishes in bulk ichthyoplankton samples (larvae and eggs) from four rivers of ecological and cultural importance in southern Canada. We were successful in detecting species known from each river and three invasive species in two of the four rivers. This includes the first detection of early life-stage rudd in the Credit River. We evaluated whether sampling gear affected the detection of invasive species and estimates of species richness, and found that light traps outperform bongo nets in both cases. We also found that the primers used for the amplification of target sequences and the number of sequencing reads generated per sample affect the consistency of species detections. However, these factors have less impact on detections and species richness estimates than the number of samples collected and analysed. Our analyses also show that incomplete reference databases can result in incorrectly attributing DNA sequences to invasive species. Overall, we conclude that DNA metabarcoding is an efficient tool for monitoring the early establishment of invasive species by detecting evidence of reproduction but requires careful consideration of sampling design and the primers used to amplify, sequence and classify the diversity of native and potentially invasive species.     

Bioinformatic challenges for DNA metabarcoding of plants and animals

Almost all empirical studies in ecology have to identify the species involved in the ecological process under examination. DNA metabarcoding, which couples the principles of DNA barcoding with next generation sequencing technology, provides an opportunity to easily produce large amounts of data on biodiversity. Microbiologists have long used metabarcoding approaches, but use of this technique in the assessment of biodiversity in plant and animal communities is under-explored. Despite its relationship with DNA barcoding, several unique features of DNA metabarcoding justify the development of specific data analysis methodologies. In this review, we describe the bioinformatics tools available for DNA metabarcoding of plants and animals, and we revisit others developed for DNA barcoding or microbial metabarcoding. We also discuss the principles and associated tools for evaluating and comparing DNA barcodes in the context of DNA metabarcoding, for designing new custom-made barcodes adapted to specific ecological question, for dealing with PCR and sequencing errors, and for inferring taxonomical data from sequences.     

DNA条形码在生态学研究中的应用与展望

DNA条形码是利用标准的DNA片段对物种进行快速鉴定的技术,已在生物学各相关领域得到广泛应用。随着DNA条形码技术的不断发展和完善,已成功应用于生态学领域的相关研究中。本文综述了DNA条形码在物种快速鉴定和隐存种发现、群落系统发育重建和生态取证、群落内物种间相互关系研究等方面的应用,并介绍了DNAmetabarcoding技术和环境DNA条形码在生物多样性和生态学研究领域中的应用。最后,结合新的测序技术和未来大科学装置的发展,在相关数据库逐渐完善,新分析方法和计算模型不断开发使用的情景下,对DNA条形码在生态学相关领域的应用前景进行了展望。     

Metabarcoding技术在真菌多样性研究中的应用

由于受到气候变化、土地利用变化及环境污染等诸多因素的干扰, 真菌多样性受到不容忽视的威胁, 亟需得到保护。构建物种数据库是实现真菌多样性研究和保护的重要前提。近年来兴起的DNA条形码及metabarcoding技术能够在很大程度上弥补传统鉴定方法的缺陷, 可对真菌物种进行大规模、准确、快速、高效地鉴定。本文梳理了metabarcoding技术在真菌物种多样性评估、真菌多样性影响机制和真菌古生态重建等研究中的应用, 同时强调了metabarcoding技术用于真菌多样性研究尚处于初期阶段, 在构建有效参照数据库、优化实验流程以及升级生物信息学工具等方面仍需要进一步的完善。建议加强真菌分类学家、生态学家以及计算机工具研发工程师之间的合作, 共同解决metabarcoding技术在真菌多样性研究及应用中面临的问题, 为宏观尺度上真菌多样性保护提供更加科学的依据。     

Establishing arthropod community composition using metabarcoding: Surprising inconsistencies between soil samples and preservative ethanol and homogenate from Malaise trap catches

DNA metabarcoding allows the analysis of insect communities faster and more efficiently than ever before. However, metabarcoding can be conducted through several approaches, and the consistency of results across methods has rarely been studied. We compare the results obtained by DNA metabarcoding of the same communities using two different markers – COI and 16S – and three different sampling methods: (a) homogenized Malaise trap samples (homogenate), (b) preservative ethanol from the same samples, and (c) soil samples. Our results indicate that COI and 16S offer partly complementary information on Malaise trap samples, with each marker detecting a significant number of species not detected by the other. Different sampling methods offer highly divergent estimates of community composition. The community recovered from preservative ethanol of Malaise trap samples is significantly different from that recovered from homogenate. Small and weakly sclerotized insects tend to be overrepresented in ethanol while strong and large taxa are overrepresented in homogenate. For soil samples, highly degenerate COI primers pick up large amounts of nontarget DNA and only 16S provides adequate analyses of insect diversity. However, even with 16S, very little overlap in molecular operational taxonomic unit (MOTU) content was found between the trap and the soil samples. Our results demonstrate that none of the tested sampling approaches is satisfactory on its own. For instance, DNA extraction from preservative ethanol is not a valid replacement for destructive bulk extraction but a complement. In future metabarcoding studies, both should ideally be used together to achieve comprehensive representation of the target community.     

Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities

The genomic revolution has fundamentally changed how we survey biodiversity on earth. High‐throughput sequencing (“HTS”) platforms now enable the rapid sequencing of DNA from diverse kinds of environmental samples (termed “environmental DNA” or “eDNA”). Coupling HTS with our ability to associate sequences from eDNA with a taxonomic name is called “eDNA metabarcoding” and offers a powerful molecular tool capable of noninvasively surveying species richness from many ecosystems. Here, we review the use of eDNA metabarcoding for surveying animal and plant richness, and the challenges in using eDNA approaches to estimate relative abundance. We highlight eDNA applications in freshwater, marine and terrestrial environments, and in this broad context, we distill what is known about the ability of different eDNA sample types to approximate richness in space and across time. We provide guiding questions for study design and discuss the eDNA metabarcoding workflow with a focus on primers and library preparation methods. We additionally discuss important criteria for consideration of bioinformatic filtering of data sets, with recommendations for increasing transparency. Finally, looking to the future, we discuss emerging applications of eDNA metabarcoding in ecology, conservation, invasion biology, biomonitoring, and how eDNA metabarcoding can empower citizen science and biodiversity education.     

Genetic monitoring of open ocean biodiversity: An evaluation of DNA metabarcoding for processing continuous plankton recorder samples

DNA metabarcoding is an efficient method for measuring biodiversity, but the process of initiating long‐term DNA‐based monitoring programmes, or integrating with conventional programs, is only starting. In marine ecosystems, plankton surveys using the continuous plankton recorder (CPR) have characterized biodiversity along transects covering millions of kilometres with time‐series spanning decades. We investigated the potential for use of metabarcoding in CPR surveys. Samples (n = 53) were collected in two Southern Ocean transects and metazoans identified using standard microscopic methods and by high‐throughput sequencing of a cytochrome c oxidase subunit I marker. DNA increased the number of metazoan species identified and provided high‐resolution taxonomy of groups problematic in conventional surveys (e.g., larval echinoderms and hydrozoans). Metabarcoding also generally produced more detections than microscopy, but this sensitivity may make cross‐contamination during sampling a problem. In some samples, the prevalence of DNA from large plankton such as krill masked the presence of smaller species. We investigated adding a fixed amount of exogenous DNA to samples as an internal control to allow determination of relative plankton biomass. Overall, the metabarcoding data represent a substantial shift in perspective, making direct integration into current long‐term time‐series challenging. We discuss a number of hurdles that exist for progressing DNA metabarcoding from the current snapshot studies to the requirements of a long‐term monitoring programme. Given the power and continually increasing efficiency of metabarcoding, it is almost certain this approach will play an important role in future plankton monitoring.     

Replicate DNA metabarcoding can discriminate seasonal and spatial abundance shifts in river macroinvertebrate assemblages

The delivery of consistent and accurate fine-resolution data on biodiversity using metabarcoding promises to improve environmental assessment and research. Whilst this approach is a substantial improvement upon traditional techniques, critics note that metabarcoding data are suitable for establishing taxon occurrence, but not abundance. We propose a novel hierarchical approach to recovering abundance information from metabarcoding, and demonstrate this technique using benthic macroinvertebrates. To sample a range of abundance structures without introducing additional changes in composition, we combined seasonal surveys with fish-exclusion experiments at Catamaran Brook in northern New Brunswick, Canada. Five monthly surveys collected 31 benthic samples for DNA metabarcoding divided between caged and control treatments. A further six samples per survey were processed using traditional morphological identification for comparison. By estimating the probability of detecting a single individual, multispecies abundance models infer changes in abundance based on changes in detection frequency. Using replicate detections of 184 genera (and 318 species) from metabarcoding samples, our analysis identified changes in abundance arising from both seasonal dynamics and the exclusion of fish predators. Counts obtained from morphological samples were highly variable, a feature that limited the opportunity for more robust comparison, and emphasizing the difficulty standard methods also face to detect changes in abundance. Our approach is the first to demonstrate how quantitative estimates of abundance can be made using metabarcoding, both among species within sites as well as within species among sites. Many samples are required to capture true abundance patterns, particularly in streams where counts are highly variable, but few studies can afford to process entire samples. Our approach allows study of responses across whole communities, and at fine taxonomic resolution. We discuss how ecological studies can use additional sampling to capture changes in abundance at fine resolution, and how this can complement broad-scale biomonitoring using DNA metabarcoding.     

Quantitative and qualitative assessment of pollen DNA metabarcoding using constructed species mixtures

Pollen DNA metabarcoding—marker‐based genetic identification of potentially mixed‐species pollen samples—has applications across a variety of fields. While basic species‐level pollen identification using standard DNA barcode markers is established, the extent to which metabarcoding (a) correctly assigns species identities to mixes (qualitative matching) and (b) generates sequence reads proportionally to their relative abundance in a sample (quantitative matching) is unclear, as these have not been assessed relative to known standards. We tested the quantitative and qualitative robustness of metabarcoding in constructed pollen mixtures varying in species richness (1–9 species), taxonomic relatedness (within genera to across class) and rarity (5%–100% of grains), using Illumina MiSeq with the markers rbcL and ITS2. Qualitatively, species composition determinations were largely correct, but false positives and negatives occurred. False negatives were typically driven by lack of a barcode gap or rarity in a sample. Species richness and taxonomic relatedness, however, did not strongly impact correct determinations. False positives were likely driven by contamination, chimeric sequences and/or misidentification by the bioinformatics pipeline. Quantitatively, the proportion of reads for each species was only weakly correlated with its relative abundance, in contrast to suggestions from some other studies. Quantitative mismatches are not correctable by consistent scaling factors, but instead are context‐dependent on the other species present in a sample. Together, our results show that metabarcoding is largely robust for determining pollen presence/absence but that sequence reads should not be used to infer relative abundance of pollen grains.     

The predator problem and PCR primers in molecular dietary analysis: Swamped or silenced; depth or breadth?

Dietary metabarcoding has vastly improved our ability to analyse the diets of animals, but it is hampered by a plethora of technical limitations including potentially reduced data output due to the disproportionate amplification of the DNA of the focal predator, here termed “the predator problem”. We review the various methods commonly used to overcome this problem, from deeper sequencing to exclusion of predator DNA during PCR, and how they may interfere with increasingly common multipredator-taxon studies. We suggest that multiprimer approaches with an emphasis on achieving both depth and breadth of prey detections may overcome the issue to some extent, although multitaxon studies require further consideration, as highlighted by an empirical example. We also review several alternative methods for reducing the prevalence of predator DNA that are conceptually promising but require additional empirical examination. The predator problem is a key constraint on molecular dietary analyses but, through this synthesis, we hope to guide researchers in overcoming this in an effective and pragmatic way.     

DNA from soil mirrors plant taxonomic and growth form diversity

Ecosystems across the globe are threatened by climate change and human activities. New rapid survey approaches for monitoring biodiversity would greatly advance assessment and understanding of these threats. Taking advantage of next-generation DNA sequencing, we tested an approach we call metabarcoding: high-throughput and simultaneous taxa identification based on a very short (usually <100 base pairs) but informative DNA fragment. Short DNA fragments allow the use of degraded DNA from environmental samples. All analyses included amplification using plant-specific versatile primers, sequencing and estimation of taxonomic diversity. We tested in three steps whether degraded DNA from dead material in soil has the potential of efficiently assessing biodiversity in different biomes. First, soil DNA from eight boreal plant communities located in two different vegetation types (meadow and heath) was amplified. Plant diversity detected from boreal soil was highly consistent with plant taxonomic and growth form diversity estimated from conventional above-ground surveys. Second, we assessed DNA persistence using samples from formerly cultivated soils in temperate environments. We found that the number of crop DNA sequences retrieved strongly varied with years since last cultivation, and crop sequences were absent from nearby, uncultivated plots. Third, we assessed the universal applicability of DNA metabarcoding using soil samples from tropical environments: a large proportion of species and families from the study site were efficiently recovered. The results open unprecedented opportunities for large-scale DNA-based biodiversity studies across a range of taxonomic groups using standardized metabarcoding approaches.     

Assessing ecological status with diatoms DNA metabarcoding: Scaling-up on a WFD monitoring network (Mayotte island,France)

Diatoms are excellent ecological indicators of water quality because they are broadly distributed, they show high species diversity and they respond rapidly to human pressures. In Europe, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) gives the legal basis for the use of this indicator for water quality assessment and its management. Several quality indices, like the Specific Polluosensitivity Index (SPI), were developed to assess the ecological quality status of rivers based on diatom communities. It is based on morphological identifications and count of diatom species present in natural biofilms using a microscope. This methodology requires high taxonomic skills and several hours of analysis per sample as 400 individuals must be identified to species level. Since several years, a molecular approach based on DNA metabarcoding combined to High-Throughput Sequencing (HTS) is developed to characterize species assemblages in environmental samples which is potentially faster and cheaper. The ability of this approach to provide reliable diatom inventories has been demonstrated and its application to water quality assessment is currently being improved. Despite optimization of the DNA metabarcoding process with diatoms, few studies had yet extended it at the scale of a freshwater monitoring network and evaluated the reliability of its quality assessment compared to the classical morphological approach.In the present study we applied DNA metabarcoding to the river monitoring network of the tropical Island Mayotte. This island is a French département since 2011 and the WFD has to be applied. This offered the opportunity to scale up the comparison of molecular and morphological approaches and their ability to produce comparable community inventories and water quality assessments. Benthic diatoms were sampled following WFD standards in 45 river sites in 2014 and 2015 (80 samples). All samples were submitted in parallel to the molecular and the morphological approaches. DNA metabarcoding was carried out using Genelute DNA extraction method, rbcL DNA barcode and PGM sequencing, while microscopic counts were carried out for the classical methodology. Diatom community structures in terms of molecular (OTUs) and of morphological (species) were significantly correlated. However, only 13% of the species was shared by both approaches, with qualitative and quantitative variation due to i) the incompleteness of the reference library (82% of morphological species are not represented in the database), ii) limits in taxonomic knowledge and iii) biases in the estimation of relative abundances linked to diatom cell biovolume. However, ecological quality status assessed with the molecular and morphological SPI values were congruent, and little affected by sequencing depth. DNA metabarcoding of diatom communities allowed a reliable estimation of the quality status for most of the rivers at the scale of the full biomonitoring network of Mayotte Island.     

Performance of amplicon and shotgun sequencing for accurate biomass estimation in invertebrate community samples

New applications of DNA and RNA sequencing are expanding the field of biodiversity discovery and ecological monitoring, yet questions remain regarding precision and efficiency. Due to primer bias, the ability of metabarcoding to accurately depict biomass of different taxa from bulk communities remains unclear, while PCR‐free whole mitochondrial genome (mitogenome) sequencing may provide a more reliable alternative. Here, we used a set of documented mock communities comprising 13 species of freshwater macroinvertebrates of estimated individual biomass, to compare the detection efficiency of COI metabarcoding (three different amplicons) and shotgun mitogenome sequencing. Additionally, we used individual COI barcoding and de novo mitochondrial genome sequencing, to provide reference sequences for OTU assignment and metagenome mapping (mitogenome skimming), respectively. We found that, even though both methods occasionally failed to recover very low abundance species, metabarcoding was less consistent, by failing to recover some species with higher abundances, probably due to primer bias. Shotgun sequencing results provided highly significant correlations between read number and biomass in all but one species. Conversely, the read–biomass relationships obtained from metabarcoding varied across amplicons. Specifically, we found significant relationships for eight of 13 (amplicons B1FR‐450 bp, FF130R‐130 bp) or four of 13 (amplicon FFFR, 658 bp) species. Combining the results of all three COI amplicons (multiamplicon approach) improved the read–biomass correlations for some of the species. Overall, mitogenomic sequencing yielded more informative predictions of biomass content from bulk macroinvertebrate communities than metabarcoding. However, for large‐scale ecological studies, metabarcoding currently remains the most commonly used approach for diversity assessment.     

Evaluating next‐generation sequencing (NGS) methods for routine monitoring of wild bees: Metabarcoding,mitogenomics or NGS barcoding

Implementing cost‐effective monitoring programs for wild bees remains challenging due to the high costs of sampling and specimen identification. To reduce costs, next‐generation sequencing (NGS)‐based methods have lately been suggested as alternatives to morphology‐based identifications. To provide a comprehensive presentation of the advantages and weaknesses of different NGS‐based identification methods, we assessed three of the most promising ones, namely metabarcoding, mitogenomics and NGS barcoding. Using a regular monitoring data set (723 specimens identified using morphology), we found that NGS barcoding performed best for both species presence/absence and abundance data, producing only few false positives (3.4%) and no false negatives. In contrast, the proportion of false positives and false negatives was higher using metabarcoding and mitogenomics. Although strong correlations were found between biomass and read numbers, abundance estimates significantly skewed the communities' composition in these two techniques. NGS barcoding recovered the same ecological patterns as morphology. Ecological conclusions based on metabarcoding and mitogenomics were similar to those based on morphology when using presence/absence data, but different when using abundance data. In terms of workload and cost, we show that metabarcoding and NGS barcoding can compete with morphology, but not mitogenomics which was consistently more expensive. Based on these results, we advocate that NGS barcoding is currently the seemliest NGS method for monitoring of wild bees. Furthermore, this method has the advantage of potentially linking DNA sequences with preserved voucher specimens, which enable morphological re‐examination and will thus produce verifiable records which can be fed into faunistic databases.