Pooling size sorted malaise trap fractions to maximise taxon recovery with metabarcoding
Vasco ElbrechtiD, Sarah J. BourlatiD, Thomas HörreniD, Angie Lindner, Adriana MordenteiD, Niklas W. Noll, Martin SorgiD, Vera Marie Alida ZizkaiD
Abstract
O_LISmall and rare specimens can remain undetected when metabarcoding bulk samples with a high size heterogeneity of specimens. This is especially critical for malaise trap samples, where most of the biodiversity is often contributed by small specimens. How to size sort and in which proportions to pool these samples has not been widely explored. We set out to find a size sorting strategy that maximizes taxonomic recovery but remains highly scalable and time efficient. C_LIO_LIThree 3 malaise trap samples where size sorted into 4 size classes using dry sieving. Each fraction was homogenized and lysed. The corresponding lysates were pooled to simulate samples never sorted, pooled in equal proportions and in 4 different proportions favoring the small size fractions. DNA from the pooled fractions as well as the individual size classes were extracted and metabarcoded using the FwhF2 and Fol-degen-rev primer set. Additionally wet sieving strategies were explored. C_LIO_LIThe small size fractions harbored the highest diversity, and were best represented when pooling in favor of small specimens. Not size sorting a sample leads to a 45-77% decrease in taxon recovery compared to size sorted samples. A size separation into only 2 fractions (below 4 mm and above) can already double taxon recovery compared to not sorting. However, increasing the sequencing depth 3-4 fold can also increase taxon recovery to comparable levels, but remains biased toward biomass rich taxa in the sample. C_LIO_LIWe demonstrate that size fractionizing bulk malaise samples can increase taxon recovery. The most practical approach is wet sieving into two size fractions, and proportional pooling of the lysates in favor of the small size fraction (80-90% volume). However, in large projects with time constraints, increasing sequencing depth can also be an alternative solution. C_LI
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 9
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Recommendations for tissue homogenisation and extraction in DNA metabarcoding of Malaise trap samples
Vera Marie Alida Zizka, Matthias F. Geiger, … Martin Sorg·bioRxiv·Jan 25, 2022
- Is there a fly in my soup? To what extent do metabarcoding and individual barcoding tell the same story?
Brendan Furneaux, Tomas V. Roslin, … Otso Ovaskainen·Molecular Ecology ResourcesPeer-reviewed·Sep 11, 2026
- Accuracy of occurrence and abundance estimates from insect metabarcoding
Ela Iwaszkiewicz-Eggebrecht, Emma Granqvist, … Fredrik Ronquist·Methods in Ecology and EvolutionPeer-reviewed·Jun 26, 2026
- Effects of Malaise trap spacing on species richness and composition of terrestrial arthropod bulk samples
D. Steinke, T. W. A. Braukmann, … V. Elbrecht·Metabarcoding and MetagenomicsPeer-reviewed·Apr 9, 2021
- Establishing insect community composition using metabarcoding of soil samples, and preservative ethanol and homogenate from Malaise trap catches: surprising inconsistencies between methods.
D. Marquina, R. Esparza-Salas, … F. Ronquist·bioRxiv·Apr 2, 2019
- Optimizing insect metabarcoding using replicated mock communities
E. Iwaszkiewicz-Eggebrecht, E. Granqvist, … P. Lukasik·bioRxiv·Jun 20, 2022