Advertisement

Conservation Genetics

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 2039–2048 | Cite as

Pyrosequencing faecal DNA to determine diet of little penguins: is what goes in what comes out?

  • Bruce E. DeagleEmail author
  • André Chiaradia
  • Julie McInnes
  • Simon N. Jarman
Research Article

Abstract

DNA barcoding of faeces or stomach contents is an emerging approach for dietary analysis. We pyrosequenced mtDNA 16S markers amplified from faeces of captive little penguins (Eudyptula minor) to examine if recovered sequences reflect the proportions of species consumed. We also analysed wild little penguin faeces collected from 100 nests in southeast Australia. In the captive study, pilchards were the primary fish fed to the penguins and DNA sequences from pilchard were the most common sequences recovered. Sequences of three other fish fed in constant mass proportions (45:35:20) were all detected, but proportions of sequences (60:6:34) were considerably different than mass proportions in the diet. Correction factors based on relative mtDNA density in the fish did not improve diet estimates. Consistency between replicate samples suggests that the observed bias resulted from differences in prey digestibility. Detection of DNA from fish consumed before the penguins were brought into captivity indicates that a DNA signal in faeces can persist for at least 4 days after ingestion. In the wild-collected faeces, 24 distinct fish and 1 squid were identified; anchovy, barracouta and pilchard accounted for over 80% of these sequences. Our results highlight that DNA sequences recovered in dietary barcoding studies can provide semi-quantitative information on diet composition, but these data should be given wide confidence intervals.

Keywords

Eudyptula minor DNA barcoding Seabird diet GS-FLX 454 Sequencing Non-invasive 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank M. Healy and T. Murray for help keeping the temporarily captive penguins happy, and L. Renwick, E. Alamo and P. Wasiak for collecting samples in the field. We are grateful for funding from Phillip Island Nature Park and support from the Australian Antarctic Division. BED was supported by an NSERC Postdoctoral Fellowship during the later stages of this study. The project was approved by the Phillip Island Nature Park Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee and by the Department of Sustainability and Environment of Victoria, Australia.

References

  1. Acinas SG, Sarma-Rupavtarm R, Klepac-Ceraj V, Polz MF (2005) PCR-induced sequence artifacts and bias: insights from comparison of two 16S rRNA clone libraries constructed from the same sample. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8966–8969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–410PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett RT, Camphuysen K, Anker-Nilssen T et al (2007) Diet studies of seabirds: a review and recommendations. ICES J Mar Sci 64:1675–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boersma PD, Rebstock GA, Frere E, Moore SE (2009) Following the fish: penguins and productivity in the South Atlantic. Ecol Monogr 79:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd IL, Murray AWA (2001) Monitoring a marine ecosystem using responses of upper trophic level predators. J Anim Ecol 70:747–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradley BJ, Stiller M, Doran-Sheehy DM et al (2007) Plant DNA sequences from feces: potential means for assessing diets of wild primates. Am J Primatol 69:699–705CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Braley M, Goldsworthy SD, Page B, Steer M, Austin JJ (2010) Assessing morphological and DNA-based diet analysis techniques in a generalist predator, the arrow squid Nototodarus gouldi. Mol Ecol Res 10:466–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooke MD (2004) The food consumption of the world’s seabirds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:S246–S248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casper RM, Jarman SN, Deagle BE, Gales NJ, Hindell MA (2007) Detecting prey from DNA in predator scats: a comparison with morphological analysis, using Arctocephalus seals fed a known diet. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 347:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiaradia AF, Kerry KR (1999) Daily nest attendance and breeding performance in the little penguin Eudyptula minor at Phillip Island, Australia. Mar Ornithol 27:13–20Google Scholar
  11. Chiaradia A, Nisbet ICT (2006) Plasticity in parental provisioning and chick growth in little penguins Eudyptula minor in years of high and low breeding success. Ardea 94:257–270Google Scholar
  12. Chiaradia A, Forero MG, Hobson KA, Cullen JM (2010) Changes in diet and trophic position of a top predator ten years after a mass mortality of a key prey. ICES J Mar Sci. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsq067
  13. Clare EL, Fraser EE, Braid HE, Fenton MB, Hebert PDN (2009) Species on the menu of a generalist predator, the eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis): using a molecular approach to detect arthropod prey. Mol Ecol 18:2532–2542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cullen JM, Montague TL, Hull C (1992) Food of little penguins Eudyptula minor in Victoria—comparison of 3 localities between 1985 and 1988. Emu 91:318–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deagle BE, Tollit DJ (2007) Quantitative analysis of prey DNA in pinniped faeces: potential to estimate diet composition? Conserv Genet 8:743–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deagle BE, Tollit DJ, Jarman SN et al (2005) Molecular scatology as a tool to study diet: analysis of prey DNA in scats from captive Steller sea lions. Mol Ecol 14:1831–1842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Deagle BE, Eveson JP, Jarman SN (2006) Quantification of damage in DNA recovered from highly degraded samples—a case study on DNA in faeces. Front Zool 3:e11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deagle BE, Gales NJ, Evans K et al (2007) Studying seabird diet through genetic analysis of faeces: a case study on macaroni penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus). PLoS ONE 2:e831CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Deagle BE, Kirkwood R, Jarman SN (2009) Analysis of Australian fur seal diet by pyrosequencing prey DNA in faeces. Mol Ecol 18:2022–2038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunshea G (2009) DNA-based diet analysis for any predator. PLoS ONE 4:e5252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Forney LJ, Zhou X, Brown CJ (2004) Molecular microbial ecology: land of the one-eyed king. Curr Opin Microbiol 7:210–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gales RP (1987) Validation of the stomach-flushing technique for obtaining stomach contents of penguins. Ibis 129:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hedd A, Bertram DF, Ryder JL, Jones IL (2006) Effects of interdecadal climate variability on marine trophic interactions: rhinoceros auklets and their fish prey. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 309:263–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hofreiter M, Poinar HN, Spaulding WG et al (2000) A molecular analysis of ground sloth diet through the last glaciation. Mol Ecol 9:1975–1984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoskins AJ, Dann P, Ropert-Coudert Y et al (2008) Foraging behaviour and habitat selection of the little penguin Eudyptula minor during early chick rearing in Bass Strait, Australia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 366:293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huber JA, Morrison HG, Huse SM et al (2009) Effect of PCR amplicon size on assessments of clone library microbial diversity and community structure. Environ Microbiol 11:1292–1302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hudson ME (2008) Sequencing breakthroughs for genomic ecology and evolutionary biology. Mol Ecol Resour 8:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Inger R, Bearhop S (2008) Applications of stable isotope analyses to avian ecology. Ibis 150:447–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jarman SN, Gales NJ, Tierney M, Gill PC, Elliott NG (2002) A DNA-based method for identification of krill species and its application to analysing the diet of marine vertebrate predators. Mol Ecol 11:2679–2690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. King RA, Read DS, Traugott M, Symondson WOC (2008) Molecular analysis of predation: a review of best practice for DNA-based approaches. Mol Ecol 17:947–963CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Passmore AJ, Jarman SN, Swadling KM et al (2006) DNA as a dietary biomarker in Antarctic Krill, Euphausia superba. Mar Biotechnol 8:686–696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pierce GJ, Boyle PR (1991) A review of methods for diet analysis in piscivorous marine mammals. Oceanogr Mar Biol 29:409–486Google Scholar
  33. Porazinska DL, Giblin-Davis RM, Faller L et al (2009) Evaluating high-throughput sequencing as a method for metagenomic analysis of nematode diversity. Mol Ecol Resour 9:1439–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ropert-Coudert Y, Kato A, Chiaradia A (2009) Impact of small-scale environmental perturbations on local marine food resources: a case study of a predator, the little penguin. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:4105–4109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Soininen E, Valentini A, Coissac E et al (2009) Analysing diet of small herbivores: the efficiency of DNA barcoding coupled with high-throughput pyrosequencing for deciphering the composition of complex plant mixtures. Front Zool 6:e16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sydeman WJ, Hobson KA, Pyle P, McLaren EB (1997) Trophic relationships among seabirds in central California: combined stable isotope and conventional dietary approach. Condor 99:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Troedsson C, Simonelli P, Nägele V, Nejstgaard J, Frischer M (2009) Quantification of copepod gut content by differential length amplification quantitative PCR (dla-qPCR). Mar Biol 156:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Valentini A, Miquel C, Nawaz MA et al (2009a) New perspectives in diet analysis based on DNA barcoding and parallel pyrosequencing: the trnL approach. Mol Ecol Resour 9:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Valentini A, Pompanon F, Taberlet P (2009b) DNA barcoding for ecologists. Trends Ecol Evol 24:110–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Vences M, Thomas M, Van Der Meijden A, Chiari Y, Vieites DR (2005) Comparative performance of the 16S rRNA gene in DNA barcoding of amphibians. Front Zool 2:e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vestheim H, Jarman SN (2008) Blocking primers to enhance PCR amplification of rare sequences in mixed samples—a case study on prey DNA in Antarctic krill stomachs. Front Zool 5:e12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. von Wintzingerode F, Gobel UB, Stackebrandt E (1997) Determination of microbial diversity in environmental samples: pitfalls of PCR-based rRNA analysis. FEMS Microbiol Rev 21:213–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weber DC, Lundgren JG (2009) Detection of predation using qPCR: effect of prey quantity, elapsed time, chaser diet, and sample preservation on detectable quantity of prey DNA. J Insect Sci 9:e41CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce E. Deagle
    • 1
    Email author
  • André Chiaradia
    • 2
  • Julie McInnes
    • 2
  • Simon N. Jarman
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.Research DepartmentPhillip Island Nature ParksCowesAustralia
  3. 3.Australian Marine Mammal Centre, Australian Antarctic DivisionKingstonAustralia

Personalised recommendations