Rarity is a more reliable indicator of land-use impacts on soil invertebrate communities than other diversity metrics.
COI
biodiversity
ecology
land use
metabarcoding
rarity
soil invertebrates
Journal
eLife
ISSN: 2050-084X
Titre abrégé: Elife
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101579614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 05 2020
19 05 2020
Historique:
received:
16
10
2019
accepted:
15
04
2020
entrez:
20
5
2020
pubmed:
20
5
2020
medline:
16
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The effects of land use on soil invertebrates - an important ecosystem component - are poorly understood. We investigated land-use impacts on a comprehensive range of soil invertebrates across New Zealand, measured using DNA metabarcoding and six biodiversity metrics. Rarity and phylogenetic rarity - direct measures of the number of species or the portion of a phylogeny unique to a site - showed stronger, more consistent responses across taxa to land use than widely used metrics of species richness, effective species numbers, and phylogenetic diversity. Overall, phylogenetic rarity explained the highest proportion of land use-related variance. Rarity declined from natural forest to planted forest, grassland, and perennial cropland for most soil invertebrate taxa, demonstrating pervasive impacts of agricultural land use on soil invertebrate communities. Commonly used diversity metrics may underestimate the impacts of land use on soil invertebrates, whereas rarity provides clearer and more consistent evidence of these impacts. Living within the Earth’s soil are millions of insects, worms and other invertebrates, which help keep the ground healthy and fertile. There is a growing concern that changing land-use habits, such as agriculture and urban development, are causing these populations of invertebrates to decline. However, to what extent different types of land use negatively impact soil invertebrates is not clear. Healthy habitats often have a greater variety of species. This biodiversity can be measured in a number of ways, ranging from counting the number of species, to more complex approaches that calculate a species’ role in an ecosystem or how close it is to extinction. Finding a way to sensitively measure the biodiversity of soil invertebrates could further researcher’s understanding of how different types of land use are affecting these communities. A new method known as DNA metabarcoding has made it easier to distinguish between different species and calculate the biodiversity of entire populations. Now, Dopheide et al. have used this technique to study invertebrate communities from 75 sites across New Zealand which have been impacted by different land-use habits. This revealed that the most reliable and consistent way to uncover how land use affects soil invertebrates was to measure the rarity of species (i.e. the number of unique species present at each site). Dopheide et al. found that agriculture negatively affected soil invertebrates and that most types of invertebrates responded in a similar way. Horticulture – such as orchards and vineyards – had the most severe impact, with the lowest variety of species compared to grassland or forest. Other measurements of biodiversity, such as the number of different species, may underestimate the negative impact agriculture is having on invertebrate communities. The findings of Dopheide et al. highlight why developing strategies to preserve and restore these communities is so important. However, more work is needed to understand what specifically is causing biodiversity to decline and how this effect can be reversed.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Living within the Earth’s soil are millions of insects, worms and other invertebrates, which help keep the ground healthy and fertile. There is a growing concern that changing land-use habits, such as agriculture and urban development, are causing these populations of invertebrates to decline. However, to what extent different types of land use negatively impact soil invertebrates is not clear. Healthy habitats often have a greater variety of species. This biodiversity can be measured in a number of ways, ranging from counting the number of species, to more complex approaches that calculate a species’ role in an ecosystem or how close it is to extinction. Finding a way to sensitively measure the biodiversity of soil invertebrates could further researcher’s understanding of how different types of land use are affecting these communities. A new method known as DNA metabarcoding has made it easier to distinguish between different species and calculate the biodiversity of entire populations. Now, Dopheide et al. have used this technique to study invertebrate communities from 75 sites across New Zealand which have been impacted by different land-use habits. This revealed that the most reliable and consistent way to uncover how land use affects soil invertebrates was to measure the rarity of species (i.e. the number of unique species present at each site). Dopheide et al. found that agriculture negatively affected soil invertebrates and that most types of invertebrates responded in a similar way. Horticulture – such as orchards and vineyards – had the most severe impact, with the lowest variety of species compared to grassland or forest. Other measurements of biodiversity, such as the number of different species, may underestimate the negative impact agriculture is having on invertebrate communities. The findings of Dopheide et al. highlight why developing strategies to preserve and restore these communities is so important. However, more work is needed to understand what specifically is causing biodiversity to decline and how this effect can be reversed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32423527
doi: 10.7554/eLife.52787
pii: 52787
pmc: PMC7237214
doi:
pii:
Substances chimiques
Soil
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
ID : C09X1411
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2020, Dopheide et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
AD, AM, KO, RH, JW, ID No competing interests declared
Références
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 9;8(1):4226
pubmed: 29523803
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Apr;30(4):772-80
pubmed: 23329690
Mol Ecol Resour. 2015 Nov;15(6):1289-303
pubmed: 25740652
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Aug;73(16):5261-7
pubmed: 17586664
Nature. 2007 Feb 15;445(7129):757-60
pubmed: 17301791
Mol Ecol. 2009 Oct;18(19):4061-72
pubmed: 19754516
Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 Jun;25(6):345-53
pubmed: 20188434
Nat Ecol Evol. 2018 Jul;2(7):1042-1043
pubmed: 29867100
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Dec;71(12):8228-35
pubmed: 16332807
Nat Commun. 2014 Jul 18;5:4473
pubmed: 25034856
Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol. 1994 Oct;3(5):294-9
pubmed: 7881515
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jan 7;111(1):308-13
pubmed: 24368852
Nature. 2015 Apr 2;520(7545):45-50
pubmed: 25832402
New Phytol. 2008 Jul;179(2):472-83
pubmed: 19086181
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 9;106(23):9322-7
pubmed: 19470638
Ecol Lett. 2006 Oct;9(10):1146-56
pubmed: 16972878
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 22;8(4):e61217
pubmed: 23630581
Bioinformatics. 2010 Jun 1;26(11):1463-4
pubmed: 20395285
Mol Ecol. 2019 Aug;28(16):3786-3798
pubmed: 31314933
Trends Ecol Evol. 2019 Aug;34(8):746-758
pubmed: 31104954
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 1;30(9):1312-3
pubmed: 24451623
Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Oct 22;273(1601):2659-65
pubmed: 17002952
Gigascience. 2015 Oct 06;4:46
pubmed: 26445670
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 18;12(10):e0185809
pubmed: 29045418
Nat Methods. 2013 Oct;10(10):996-8
pubmed: 23955772
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Feb 19;370(1662):20140011
pubmed: 25561672
Ecol Lett. 2012 Jul;15(7):637-48
pubmed: 22583836
Proc Biol Sci. 2016 Apr 13;283(1828):
pubmed: 27053754
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Feb 2;107(5):2088-92
pubmed: 20133854
Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Nov;14(11):450-453
pubmed: 10511724
Glob Chang Biol. 2015 Feb;21(2):973-85
pubmed: 25242445
Science. 2014 Jul 25;345(6195):401-6
pubmed: 25061202
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Feb 16;96(4):1463-8
pubmed: 9990046
Insects. 2011 Jul 01;2(3):297-325
pubmed: 26467729
Nat Commun. 2019 Mar 7;10(1):1107
pubmed: 30846683
Methods Mol Biol. 2012;840:43-9
pubmed: 22237520
Nat Commun. 2019 Jan 3;10(1):50
pubmed: 30604746
PeerJ. 2016 Oct 18;4:e2584
pubmed: 27781170
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 8;111(14):5266-70
pubmed: 24639507
PLoS One. 2010 Mar 10;5(3):e9490
pubmed: 20224823
Nat Commun. 2018 Jul 23;9(1):2888
pubmed: 30038259
Nat Commun. 2019 Mar 26;10(1):1018
pubmed: 30914632
PLoS Biol. 2013;11(5):e1001569
pubmed: 23723735
Ecol Lett. 2014 Jul;17(7):866-80
pubmed: 24751205
Front Zool. 2013 Jun 14;10:34
pubmed: 23767809
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 May 23;97(11):5954-9
pubmed: 10811901
Trends Ecol Evol. 2013 Apr;28(4):199-204
pubmed: 23218499
Nature. 2016 Dec 8;540(7632):266-269
pubmed: 27919075
Nat Commun. 2015 Oct 20;6:8568
pubmed: 26485325
Ecol Evol. 2015 Oct 22;5(22):5177-5192
pubmed: 30151122