Abstract
The current biodiversity crisis calls for rapid and wide-ranging surveys to assess living organisms. However, some taxa are more elusive than others, making monitoring challenging. This is the case for soil invertebrates, but new molecular technologies such as eDNA metabarcoding could help to alleviate this problem. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of using an eDNA approach to survey dung beetles, adapting existing monitoring methods for surveying dung fauna to enable eDNA collection in a non-destructive way. The main design idea is to capture species secretions and excretions from a serum-soaked nonwoven compress in a baited non-destructive trap. While the attractiveness of the device to dung beetles and the sampling protocol would benefit from further development, eDNA allowed the identification of more than 68% of trapped species and an identification of relative abundance match rate of 79%. The results of the study demonstrate the effectiveness of eDNA-based detection tools for the monitoring of dung beetles compared to standard surveying and identification techniques. Moreover, the adapted collecting device developed for the study could be used for similar surveys of other terrestrial invertebrates or even re-adapted. Ultimately, we hope this study encourages more non-invasive studies of insects by enabling others to utilize these emerging, non-destructive molecular techniques and therefore foster wide insect monitorings and conservation programs.
Implications for insect conservation
Standardization and optimization of sampling protocols for inventorying and monitoring is key to unlock invertebrates’ studies and conservation evaluations. Here we show how molecular tools, such as eDNA, are a promising way to gather rapidly ecological information without killing targeted populations by adapting traditional inventory tools. Newly developed NDC traps for dung beetles, inspired by CSR traps, allowed qualitative and quantitative information gathering in temperate agropastoral ecosystems opening the way to large scale eDNA monitoring to inform management and conservation schemes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
source and stock balls from this in tunnels that range from some cm to 1.5 m of depth, and (iii) dwellers live in the source of dung itself. Therefore, their DNA traces can be found in multiple locations, as the arrows show. The aim of NDC design is to get into the trap species from the different kind of guilds in one artificial environment by baiting the non-lethal trap and then to collect extracellular material (cell bristles, secretions and excretions) in order to get their DNA in a from serum-soaked nonwoven compress and proceed with eDNA metabarcoding (Illustration by CL)
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahmed DA, Petrovskii SV (2019) Analysing the impact of trap shape and movement behaviour of ground-dwelling arthropods on trap efficiency. Methods Ecol Evol 10(8):1246–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13207
Audino LD, Louzada J, Comita L (2014) Dung beetles as indicators of tropical forest restoration success: Is it possible to recover species and functional diversity? Biol Conserv 169:248–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.023
Baird DJ, Hajibabaei M (2012) Biomonitoring 2.0: a new paradigm in ecosystem assessment made possible by next-generation DNA sequencing. Mol Ecol 21(8):2039–2044. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05519.x
Barnes MA, Turner CR (2016) The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics. Conserv Genet 17(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-015-0775-4
Beiroz W, Sayer E, Slade EM, Audino L, Braga RF, Louzada J, Barlow J (2018) Spatial and temporal shifts in functional and taxonomic diversity of dung beetles in a human-modified tropical forest landscape. Ecol Indicat 95:518–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.07.062
Bellemain E, Carlsen T, Brochmann C, Coissac E, Taberlet P, Kauserud H (2010) ITS as an environmental DNA barcode for fungi: an in silico approach reveals potential PCR biases. BMC Microbiol 10:189. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-10-189
Bickford D, Lohman DJ, Sodhi NS et al (2007) Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 22(3):148–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.004
Bienert F, De Danieli S, Miquel C, Coissac E, Poillot C, Brun JJ, Taberlet P (2012) Tracking earthworm communities from soil DNA. Mol Ecol 21(8):2017–2030. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05407.x
Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Dejean T, Griffiths RA, Foster J, Wilkinson JW, Arnell A, Brotherton P, Williams P, Dunn F (2015) Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring program for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Biol Conserv 183:19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.029
Blanckenhorn WU, Rohner P, Bernasconi MV, Haugstetter J, Buser A (2016) Is qualitative and quantitative metabarcoding of dung fauna biodiversity feasible? Environ Toxicol Chem 35(8):1970–1977. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3275
Bogoni JA, Hernández MI (2014) Attractiveness of native mammal’s feces of different trophic guilds to dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). J Insect Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/ieu161
Boyer F, Mercier C, Bonin A, Le Bras Y, Taberlet P, Coissac E (2016) Obitools: a unix-inspired software package for DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol Resour 16:176–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12428
Buse J, Šlachta M, Sladecek FX, Pung M, Wagner T, Entling MH (2015) Relative importance of pasture size and grazing continuity for the long-term conservation of European dung beetles. Biol Conserv 187:112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.04.011
Cardoso P, Erwin TL, Borges PAV, New TR (2011) The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol Conserv 144(11):2647–2655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.024
Cardoso P, Barton PS, Birkhofer K, Chichorro F, Deacon C, Fartmann T, Fukushima CS, Gaigher R, Habel JC, Hallmann CA, Hill MJ, Hochkirch A, Kwak ML, Mammola S, Ari Noriega J, Orfinger AB, Pedraza F, Pryke JS, Roque FO, Settele J, Simaika JP, Stork NE, Suhling F, Vorster C, Samways MJ (2020) Scientists’ warning to humanity on insect extinctions. Biol Conserv 242:108426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108426
Carpaneto GM, Mazziotta A, Valerio L (2007) Inferring species decline from collection records: roller dung beetles in Italy (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Divers Distrib 13(6):903–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00397.x
Correa CM, Puker A, Korasaki V, Ferreira KR, Abot AR (2016) Attractiveness of baits to dung beetles in Brazilian savanna and exotic pasturelands. Entomol Sci 19(2):112–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/ens.12169
Cristescu ME (2014) From barcoding single individuals to metabarcoding biological communities: towards an integrative approach to the study of global biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 29(10):566–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.08.001
de Jong Y, Verbeek M, Michelsen V, Bjørn P, Los W, Steeman F, Bailly N, Basire C, Chylarecki P, Stloukal E, Hagedorn G, Wetzel F, Glöckler F, Kroupa A, Korb G, Hoffmann A, Häuser C, Kohlbecker A, Müller A, Güntsch A, Stoev P, Penev L (2014) Fauna Europaea–all European animal species on the web. Biodivers Data J 2:e4034
Decaëns T, Porco D, Rougerie R, Brown GG, James SW (2013) Potential of DNA barcoding for earthworm research in taxonomy and ecology. Appl Soil Ecol 65:35–42
Donaldson MR, Burnett NJ, Braun DC, Suski CD, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ, Kerr JT (2016) Taxonomic bias and international biodiversity conservation research. Facets 1:105–113. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0011
Dormont L, Rapior S, McKey DB, Lumaret JP (2007) Influence of dung volatiles on the process of resource selection by coprophagous beetles. Chemoecology 17(1):23–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-006-0355-7
Dortel E, Thuiller W, Lobo JM, Bohbot H, Lumaret JP, Jay-Robert P (2013) Potential effects of climate change on the distribution of Scarabaeidae dung beetles in western Europe. J Insect Conserv 17:1059–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-013-9590-8
Doube BM (1990) A functional classification for analysis of the structure of dung beetle assemblages. Ecol Entomol 15(4):371–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1990.tb00820.x
Dunn RR (2005) Modern insect extinctions, the neglected majority. Conserv Biol 19(4):1030–1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00078.x
Elbrecht V, Taberlet P, Dejean T et al (2016) Testing the potential of a ribosomal 16S marker for DNA metabarcoding of insects. PeerJ 4:e1966. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1966
Errouissi F, Haloti S, Jay-Robert P, Janati-Idrissi A, Lumaret JP (2004) Effects of the attractiveness for dung beetles of dung pat origin and size along a climatic gradient. Environ Entomol 33(1):45–53. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-33.1.45
Ficetola GF, Coissac E, Zundel S, Riaz T, Shehzad W, Bessière J, Taberlet P, Pompanon F (2010) An In silico approach for the evaluation of DNA barcodes. BMC Genomics 11:434. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-11-434
Habel JC, Samways MJ, Schmitt T (2019) Mitigating the precipitous decline of terrestrial European insects: requirements for a new strategy. Biodiv Conserv 28:1343–1360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01741-8
Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, De Kroon H (2017) More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
Hanski I (1991) The dung insect community. In: Hanski I, Cambefort Y (eds) Dung beetle ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 5–21
Hochkirch A, Samway MJ, Gerlach J, Böhm M, Williams P, Cardoso P et al (2020) A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity. Conserv Biol 35(2):502–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13589
Kéry M, Royle JA (2008) Schmid HImportance of sampling design and analysis in animal population studies: a comment on Sergio et al. J Appl Ecol 45(3):981–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01421.x
Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen RK, Helm A, Krauss J, Lindborg R et al (2009) Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 24(10):564–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.011
Larsen TH, Forsyth A (2005) Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity studies. Biotropica 37(2):322–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2005.00042.x
Lawson Handley L (2015) How will the “molecular revolution” contribute to biological recording? Biol J Lin Soc 115(3):750–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12516
Leandro C, Jay-Robert P, Vergnes A (2017) Bias and perspectives in insect conservation: a European scale analysis. Biol Conserv 215:213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.033
Leather SR, Basset Y, Hawkins B (2008) Insect conservation: finding the way forward. Insect Conserv Divers 1(1):67–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2007.00005.x
Lecq S, Loisel A, Bonnet X (2015) Non-lethal rapid biodiversity assessment. Ecol Ind 58:216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.004
Lewis OT, New TR, Stewart AJA (2007) Insect conservation: progress and prospects. In: Stewart AJA, New TR, Lewis OT (eds) Insect conservation biology. CABI, Oxfordshire, pp 431–435
Lobo JM, Martín-Piera F, Veiga CM (1988) Las trampas pitfall con cebo, sus posibilidades en el estudio de las communidades coprofagas de Scarabaeidae (Col.). I. Caracteristicas determinantes de su capacidad de captura. Rev Ecol Biol Sol 25:77–100
Lobo JM (1993) Estimation of dung beetle biomass. Eur J Entomol 90:235–238
Lobo JM, Lumaret JP, Jay-Robert P (1998) Sampling dung beetles in the French Mediterranean area: effects of abiotic factors and farm practices. Pedobiologia 42:252–266
Lobo JM (2001) Decline of roller dung beetle (Scarabaeinae) populations in the Iberian peninsula during the 20th century. Biol Conserv 97(1):43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00093-8
Lockwood J (1988) Not to harm a fly: our ethical obligations to Insects. Betw Species 4(3):204–211
Losey JE, Vaughan M (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 56(4):311–323. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[311:TEVOES]2.0.CO;2
Lumaret JP, Lobo JM (1996) Geographic distribution of endemic dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) in the Western Palaearctic region. Biodivers Lett 3:192–199
Mächler E, Deiner K, Steinmann P, Altermatt F (2014) Utility of environmental DNA for monitoring rare and indicator macroinvertebrate species. Freshw Sci 33(4):1174–1183. https://doi.org/10.1086/678128
Madden AA, Barberán A, Bertone MA, Menninger HL, Dunn RR, Fierer N (2016) The diversity of arthropods in homes across the United States as determined by environmental DNA analyses. Mol Ecol 25(24):6214–6224. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13900
Mankin RW, Hagstrum DW, Smith MT, Roda AL, Kairo MTK (2011) Perspective and promise: a century of insect acoustic detection and monitoring. Am Entomol 57(1):30–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/57.1.30
Manning P, Ford JP (2016) Evidence that sex-specific signals may support mate finding and limit aggregation in the dung beetle Aphodius fossor. Ecol Entomol 41(4):500–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12319
Martín-Piera F, Lobo JM (1996) A comparative discussion of trophic preferences in dung beetle communities. Miscell Zool 19(1):13–31
McGeoch MA, Van Rensburg BJ, Botes A (2002) The verification and application of bioindicators: a case study of dung beetles in a savanna ecosystem. J Appl Ecol 39(4):661–672. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00743.x
Meyer A, Boyer F, Valentini A et al (2020) Morphological vs. DNA metabarcoding approaches for the evaluation of stream ecological status with benthic invertebrates: testing different combinations of markers and strategies of data filtering. Mol Ecol 00:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15723
New TR (1999) Untangling the web: spiders and the challenges of invertebrate conservation. J Insect Conserv 3(4):251–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009697104759
Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen T, Amezquita S, Favila ME, Network TSR (2008) Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol Conserv 141(6):1461–1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.011
Nichols E, Gardner TA (2011) Dung beetles as a candidate study taxon in applied biodiversity conservation research. In: Simmons LW, Ridsdill-Smith J (eds) Ecology and evolution of dung beetles. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 267–291
Noriega JA, March-Salas M, Pertierra LR, Vulinec K (2020) Spatial partitioning of perching on plants by tropical dung beetles depends on body size and leaf characteristics: a sit-and-wait strategy for food location. Ecol Entomol 45(5):1108–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12898
Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R et al (2015) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.2–1
Paulian R, Baraud J (1982) Faune des Coléoptères de France, vol. II : Lucanoidea et Scarabaeoidea. Paris, Lechevalier
Pimm SL, Alibhai S, Bergl R et al (2015) Emerging technologies to conserve biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 30(11):685–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.008
Port JA, O’Donnell JL, Romero-Maraccini OC, Leary PR, Litvin SY, Nickols KJ et al (2016) Assessing vertebrate biodiversity in a kelp forest ecosystem using environmental DNA. Mol Ecol 25(2):527–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13481
Pont D, Rocle M, Valentini A, Civade R, Jean P, Maire A, Dejean T (2018) Environmental DNA reveals quantitative patterns of fish biodiversity in large rivers despite its downstream transportation. Sci Rep 8(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28424-8
Potamitis I, Schäfer P (2014) On classifying insects from their wing-beat: New results. Ecology and acoustics: emergent properties from community to landscape, meeting papers, 16–18.
Purvis A, Hector A (2000) Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405:212–219. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012221
R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Rees HC, Maddison BC, Middleditch DJ, Patmore JRM, Gough KC (2014) The detection of aquatic animal species using environmental DNA: a review of eDNA as a survey tool in ecology. J Appl Ecol 51(5):1450–1459. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12306
Régnier C, Achaz G, Lambert A, Cowie RH, Bouchet P, Fontaine B (2015) Mass extinction in poorly known taxa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(25):7761–7766. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502350112
Rössner E, Schönfeld J, Ahrens D (2010) Onthophagus (Palaeonthophagus) medius (Kugelann, 1792)—a good western palaearctic species in the Onthophagus vacca complex (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae: Onthophagini). Zootaxa 2629:1–28
Samways MJ, Barton PS, Birkhofer K, Chichorro F, Deacon C, Fartmann T, Fukushima CS, Gaigher R, Habel JC, Hallmann CA, Hill MJ, Hochkirch A, Kaila L, Kwak ML, Maes D, Mammola S, Noriega JA, Orfinger AB, Pedraza F, Pryke JS, Roque FO, Settele J, Simaika JP, Stork NE, Suhling F, Vorster C, Cardoso P (2020) Solutions for humanity on how to conserve insects. Biol Conserv 242:108427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108427
Sheppard SK, Harwood JD (2005) Advances in molecular ecology: tracking trophic links through predator-prey food-webs. Funct Ecol 19(5):751–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.01041.x
Simmons LW, Ridsdill-Smith J (2011) Ecology and evolution of dung beetles. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Small E (2012) The new Noah’s Ark: beautiful and useful species only. Part 2. The chosen species. Biodiversity 13(1):37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2012.659443
Spector S (2006) Scarabaeine dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae): an invertebrate focal taxon for biodiversity research and conservation. Coleopt Bull 60(mo5):71–83. https://doi.org/10.1649/0010-065X(2006)60[71:SDBCSS]2.0.CO;2
Taberlet P, Coissac E, Hajibabaei M, Rieseberg LH (2012) Environmental DNA. Mol Ecol 21(8):1789–1793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05542.x
Takahara T, Minamoto T, Yamanaka H, Doi H, Kawabata ZI (2012) Estimation of fish biomass using environmental DNA. PLoS ONE 7(4):e35868. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035868
Taylor HR, Gemmell NJ (2016) Emerging technologies to conserve biodiversity: further opportunities via genomics. Response to Pimm et al. Trends Ecol Evol 31(3):171–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.01.002
Taylor HR, Dussex H, van Heezik Y (2017) Bridging the conservation genetics gap by identifying barriers to implementation for conservation practitioners. Glob Ecol Conserv 10:231–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.04.001
Thomsen PF, Kielgast J, Iversen LL et al (2012) Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. Mol Ecol 21(11):2565–2573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05418.x
Thomsen PF, Willerslev E (2015) Environmental DNA: an emerging tool in conservation for monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biol Conserv 183:4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.019
Thomsen PF, Sigsgaard EE (2019) Environmental DNA metabarcoding of wild flowers reveals diverse communities of terrestrial arthropods. Ecol Evol 9(4):1665–1679. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4809
Tocco C, Villet M (2016) Dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) assemblages in the western Italian Alps: benchmark data for land use monitoring. Biodivers Data Journal 4:e10059. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e10059
Valentini A, Taberlet P, Miaud C, Civade R, Herder J, Thomsen PF et al (2016) Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol 25(4):929–942. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13428
Veiga CM, Lobo JM, Martín-Piera F (1989) Las trampas pitfall con cebo, sus posibilidades en el estudio de las comunidades coprofagas de Scarabaeoidea (Col.) II. Analisis de efectividad. Rev Écol Biol Sol 26(1):91–109
Verdú JR, Lobo JM, Sánchez-Piñero F, Gallego B, Numa C, Lumaret JP et al (2018) Ivermectin residues disrupt dung beetle diversity, soil properties and ecosystem functioning: an interdisciplinary field study. Sci Total Environ 618:219–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.331
Viegas G, Stenert C, Schul UH, Maltchik L (2014) Dung beetle communities as biological indicators of riparian forest widths in southern Brazil. Ecol Ind 36:703–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.036
Watts C, Dopheide A, Holdaway R, Davis C, Wood J, Thornburrow D, Dickie IA (2019) DNA metabarcoding as a tool for invertebrate community monitoring: a case study comparison with conventional techniques. Austral Entomol 58(3):675–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/aen.12384
Wurmitzer C, Blüthgen N, Krell FT, Maldonado B, Ocampo F, Müller JK, Schmitt T (2017) Attraction of dung beetles to herbivore dung and synthetic compounds in a comparative field study. Chemoecology 27(2):75–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-017-0232-6
Xu CCY, Yen IJ, Bowman D, Turner CR (2015) Spider Web DNA: a new spin on noninvasive genetics of predator and prey. PLoS ONE 10(11):e0142503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142503
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge D. Degueldre for helping during the conception and construction of the NDC device. We would also like to thank N. Foulquier, who allowed us to use his farm for the experiments. We are grateful to J. Bonfanti and S. Savagner for their field assistance and SPYGEN staff for their assistance in the eDNA laboratory. Finally, we would like to thank the reviewers, whose suggestions improved this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The Authors declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Research involving human and animal participants
None of the collected species is protected in France and/or the European Union; hence, captures do not need preliminary authorization. All specimens are stored, labelled and added to the laboratory collection. Data will be published and available thus the ScaraB’Obs database (https://data.oreme.org/entomo/home).
Informed consent
All authors agreed with the content and that all gave explicit consent to submit and that they obtained consent from the responsible authorities at the institute/organization where the work has been carried.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Camila, L., Tony, D., Alice, V. et al. A novel trap design for non-lethal monitoring of dung beetles using eDNA metabarcoding. J Insect Conserv 25, 629–642 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-021-00329-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-021-00329-4